rHES‘S ":47 ‘— g l. .a E "f 9' .mx 9- ,w ~‘ 3.1.5 as 3 1 '3 r, 1 x / This is to certify that the dissertation entitled THE ADULT BROTHER ROLE IN THE FAMILY, ITS NATURE AND MEANING: A CASE STUDY APPROACH presented by Reverend Joseph Tortorici, 0.P. has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for PH.D degreein Family and Child Ecology W flaw flag/z Major professor Date July 13, 1983 [VSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 MSU 5§IURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to % 1155 out! “BRAKES remove this checkout from Ailing-Ill. your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. k ;_ (l: t I; THE ADULT BROTHER ROLE IN THE FAMILY. ITS NATURE AND MEANING: A CASE STUDY APPROACH by Reverend Joseph Tortorici. 0.P. A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Family and Child Ecology 1983 Copyright by Reverend Joseph S.Tortorici. 0.P. 1983 ii ABSTRACT THE ADULT BROTHER ROLE IN THE FAMILY, ITS NATURE AND MEANING: A CASE STUDY APPROACH BY Reverend Joseph Tortorici, 0.P. A family role which has drawn little attention from family researchers is that of adult males in their role as brothers. This exploratory study sought to examine what it means to be a brother within a family. Four objectives guided the research investigation: (1) To examine the nature, meaning, functions and expectations of the role of brothers in the family through a case study of five families. (2) To identify the consequent effects of the brother role on extra-familial relationships with men and women during adulthood. (3) To explore the individual perspectives on the extra-familial social meaning of the term "brother". (A) To develop hypotheses for future research concerning the role of brothers within the family system and extra-familial social system. A case study methodology was used. The conceptual framework was Role Theory. Structured interview guides were employed to ensure consistency of data, and all interviews were tape recorded. Respondents were administered two Reverend Joseph Tortorici, 0.P. research instruments: the Personality Attributes Questionnaire and the Adult Brother Scale developed by the researcher. Research was conducted in a small city within the Intermountain Region of the United States during 1982. Personal referrals were used to obtain a list of 66 families from which five were selected. Families were purposively selected according to a set of seven criteria. Four of the families had three brothers; the remaining family had one brother. All siblings were blood related and lived in close proximity to one another. Data consisted of the responses to the interview questions and research questionnaires. A modification of Glaser and Strauss's constant comparative methodology was used to analyze the multiple sources of data. It was the preliminary conclusion that the fundamental nature of the adult brother role was that "he be there when needed" in whatever way he was needed, be it physical or emotional. Implied was that a brother be available willingly. The expectations of a brother primarily focused upon behaviors which were related to family survival. Availability, dependability and trustworthiness were the qualities most ascribed to brothers. Brothers were found to have a direct influence upon their sisters in helping them to understand and relate to men. The reverse was also found to be true that sisters had Reverend Joseph Tortorici, 0.P. an important role to play in helping their brothers become sensitized to women's feelings. Surrogate brothers were found to play a more important role in the life of sisters than of brothers. Respondents recognized a social meaning to the term brother identifying two dimensions to the term: personal and universal. The personal dimension involved a special friendship involving' true caring and sharing. The universal dimension signified equality and a recognition of our common humanity. Future research should include a wider variety of families in different life situations. Use of objective instruments as developed in this study would facilitate generalizability to larger populations. DEDICATED To Brother Jerome Blackburn. O.M.I. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Deepest appreciation is expressed to my Director. Dr. Dolores Borland for her patience, encouragement. loving support and critical assessments throughout the planning, execution and completion of this study. Appreciation and sincerest thanks to my other Committee members. Dr. Donald Melcer, for his guidance and teaching me about the freedom to try new things and the freedom to fail; Sister ,Mary Honora Kroger. R.S.M., Ph.D. for her longtime commitment to my graduate education and her editing work on this disserta- tion; Dr. Margaret Bubolz who has during my years of study provided inspiration and challenge to quality research: and Dr. Lucy Ferguson for her gentle support and encouragement. Many other persons made this research possible. I am grate- ful to my Religious Superiors who provided me with the time and support to pursue a graduate degree and complete the research. During the actual research period I was sustained through the constant support. understanding and prayers of the Staff of the Franciscan Family Life Center. Particular gratitude is expressed to Sister Dorothy Prokes. FSE. Ph.D for her sisterly and professional support, and whose iv creative gifts helped me through the difficult times with the organization of the data. Sincerest gratitude is expressed to Mr. William Duggan and Mr. Ross Ruchti of the Idaho State University Computer Center for their invaluable assistance and generosity in allowing me the use of the University's Hewlett-Packard 3000 .computer and its Text Document Processing facility. I am deeply indebted to Rev. Paul Cummings of Lansing, Michigan, for. the generous use of his micro-computer which was used to transfer, edit and print the final version of the dissertation. Final and deepest gratitude is expressed to the five families who made this research possible. Their willingness, to open up to me the histories and relationships of their families was an act of trust in the activity of social research. Each family member shared much of his or her person and life. Because of their giveness to the research effort. and the excitement many of them shared in its progress, these families became more than subjects but friends. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . '. . . . . xiv CHAPTER 3 I STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM. . . . . . . . . . 1 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rationale for Research Investigation. . Review of Literature. . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . Role Theory as Conceptual Framework Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . II METHODS AND PROCEDURES. 0 O O O O O O O O O 21 Research Objectives . . . . . . . . . . 21 Research Questions . . . . . . . 22 Research Propositions . . . . . . . 23 Variable Definitions. . . . . . . . . 24 Research Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Description of Method . . . . . . . . . . 31 Rationale for Method . . . . . . . . . . 32 Limitations of Method . . . . . . . . . . 33 Sampling Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Contact with Families . . . . . . . . . 37 Instrument Measures . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Interview Guides . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Adult Brother Scale . . . . . 42 Personality Attributes Questionnaire. . 43 Data Collection Procedures. . . . . . . . 47 Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 vi Page III THE FAMILIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Williams Family. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Family History and Characteristics . . . 56 Description of Siblings. . . . . . . . . 61 Vitale Family. 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 65 Family History and Characteristics . . . ~65 Description of Siblings. . . . . . . . . 71 Stevens Family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Family History and Characteristics . . . 75 Description of Siblings. . . . . . . . . 81 Tamourien Family . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Family History and Characteristics . . . 8A Description of Siblings. . . . . . . . . 88 Richmond Family . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Family History and Characteristics . . . 92 Description of Siblings . . . . . . . . 98 Comparison of Families . . . . . . . . . . 100 IV FUNCTIONS OF BROTHERS . . . . . . . . . . . 105 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 Williams Brothers. . . . . . . . 110 Identification/Differentiation . . . . . 110 Mutual Regulation. . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Direct Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Pioneering . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 Vitale Brothers. . . . . . . . . . . . 114 Identification/Differentiation . . . . . 11A Mutual Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . 119 Direct Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 Pioneering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 Stevens Brothers . . . . . . . . 120 Identification/Differentiation . . . . . 120 Mutual Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . 123 Direct Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 Pioneering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12A vii Tomourien Brothers . . . . . . Identification/Differentiation Mutual Regulation . . . . . . Direct Service . . . . . . . . Pioneering . . . . . . . . . . Richmond Siblings . . . . Identification/Differentiation Mutual Regulation . . . . . . Direct Service . . . . . . . . Pioneering . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . V MEANING. ROLES. AND EXPECTATIONS OF BROTHERS Introduction . . . . . . . . . Meaning of a Brother . . . . . . Roles of Brothers. . . . . . . . Expectations of Brothers . . . Expectations of Brothers by Brothers . Expectations of Brothers by Sisters. . Parental Expectations of their Siblings. Consensus on Expectations. . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . VI SOCIAL ASPECTS . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . Interpersonal Relationships in Adult Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . Social Meaning of the term 'Brother' Introduction . . . . . . . Surrogate Brothers . . . . Social Meaning of "Brother". Summary . . . . . . . . . viii Page 124 124 126 126 127 127 127 130 131 131 132 134 134 135 138 142 143 145 146 147 149 151 151 151 156 157 158 159 163 165 VII Research Instruments RESULTS OF RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS Personality Attributes Questionnaire Summary . Adult Brother Scale Williams . Vitale Stevens Tomourien Richmond Conclusion . VIII RESULTS OF RESEARCH PROPOSITIONS Age. Childhood Affect . Nature of Closeness Among Brother Family Cohesiveness Family Activities and Traditions Effect of Marriage . Consensus of Adult Brother Role Expectation of Roles Identity . Direct Service Sex and Spacing . Labels and Nicknames . . Experience of Being a Brother Assimilation of Sex Roles Personality Influenced by Older Sisters Identification/Differentiation . Identification and Role Learning . Imitation Sibling Conflict Summary ix Page 167 167 167 175 176 178 180 182 185 188 191 195 197 200 205 207 209 210 216 219 222 228 231 233 240 241 244 244 248 251 255 IX SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS. LIMITATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions Based on Research Questions. . Conclusions Based on Research Propositions Conclusions of Research Instruments . . . Research Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . Generalizability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Suggestions for Further Research . . . . . . APPENDIX A CALL RECORD SHEET . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX B CONSENT FORM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX C EXPLANATORY LETTER . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX D LETTER OF INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX E: TOPIC AREAS FOR INTERVIEWS . . . . . . . APPENDIX F: INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR PARENTS . . . . . . . APPENDIX G: INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR SIBLINGS . . . . . . APPENDIX H ADULT BROTHER SCALE . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX PERSONALITY ATTRIBUTES QUESTIONNAIRE . . APPENDIX FOLLOW-UP LETTER TO NON-PARTICIPANTS . CHECKLIST INSTRUMENT 0N BROTHER ROLE -. I J APPENDIX K: SCHEDULE OF CONTACTS . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX L M APPENDIX DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION INSTRUMENT BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . Page 259 259 263 :2: 271 272 275 :3“; 288 289 290 291 292 293 296 300 306 308 309 311 315 318 LIST OF TABLES TABLE Page 4.1 Major Patterns Of Identification and Relationship between Siblings . . . . . . . . . 108 4.2 Types of Identification Among Brothers in StUdy O I I I O O O I O O O O O O O O o O 0 109 5.1 Qualitities Ascribed to Brothers by Brothers and Sisters . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 7.1 Schema for Classifying Individuals on Masculinity and Femininity Scores by 3 Median Split . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 7.2 Self and Other Family Members Mean Raw Scores on the Personality Attributes Questionnaire for Brothers Only . . . . . . . . 170 7.3 Classification of Brothers' Personality Type from the PAQ by Self and Other Family Members Mean Scores . . . . . . . . . . 171 7.4 Comparison of Personality Types Based on Self and Other PAQ Scores, and on Interview Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 7.5 Raw Scores on Items of the Adult Brother Scale for the Williams Brothers . . . . 178 7.6 Averaged Scores and Total Averaged Points on the Adult Brother Scale for Each Dyadic Brother Relationship Among the Williams Brothers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 7.7 Raw Scores on Items of the Adult Brother Scale for the Vitale Siblings . . . . . . . . . 180 7.8 Averaged Scores and Total Averaged Points on the Adult Brother Scale for Each Dyadic Brother and Brother/Sister Relationship Among the Vitale Siblings . . . . . . . . . . . 182 xi Table ' Page 7.9 Raw Scores on Items of the Adult Brother Scale for the Stevens Siblings. . . . . . . . . 183 7.10 Averaged Scores and Total Averaged Points on the Adult Brother Scale for Each Dyadic Brother and Brother/Sister Relationship . Among the Stevens Siblings . . . . . . . . . . 184 7.11 Raw Scores on Items of the Adult Brother Scale for the Tamourien Siblings . . . . . . . 186 7.12 Averaged Scores and Total Averaged Points on the Adult Brother Scale for Each Dyadic Brother and Brother/Sister Relationship Among the Tamourien Siblings . . . . . . . . . . 187 7.13 Raw Scores on Items of the Adult Brother Scale for the Richmond Siblings . . . . . . . . 188 7.14 Averaged Scores and Total Averaged Points on the Adult Brother Scale for Each Dyadic Brother/Sister Relationship Among the Richmond Siblings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 7.15 Mean Scores for Items on the Adult Brother Scale - Brothers Only . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 7.16 Mean Scores for Items on the Adult Brother Scale - Brothers and Sisters Only . . . . . . . 193 xii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Genogram for Williams Family . . . . . . . . . 56 Genogram for Vitale Family . . . . . . . . . . 66 Genogram for Stevens Family . . . . . . . . . . 75 #UUN . Genogram for Tomourien Family . . . . . . . . . 84 U1 Genogram for Richmond Family . . . . . . . . . 93 xiii ABS: PAQ: A-B: OB-BS: OBB-S: OS-BB: OSS-B: IGP: IGS: LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Adult Brother Scale Personality Attributes Questionnaire All Brothers Oldest Brother with Younger Brothers and Sisters Older Brothers with Younger Sister Oldest Sister with Younger Brothers Older Sisters with Younger Brother Interview Guide for Parents Interview Guide for Siblings xiv CHAPTER I STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM A role within the family system which has, over time, drawn little attention from family researchers is that Of adult males in their role as brothers. Arkin (1979) has noted that there is a lack of research and discussion on adult males in this role. The very nature, meaning, func- tions and expectations of the adult brother role within the family have yet to be explored in depth. particularly among non-clinical families. Very fundamental questions are still in need of exploration. What does it mean to be a brother within a family? What are the individual and familial expectations and Obligations associated with the role of brother? What are the familial and extra familial socia- lizing influences upon males in the development of their brother role? Productive family interaction is enhanced when each family member understands his or her own role and the roles of other family members. It is a proposition of role theory that role clarity increases role functioning or enactment. The present study seeks to explore the dimensions Of the brother role within the family and to provide family profes- sionals and educators with a clearer perception Of the adult brother role in the family system. W The present research was conducted with three general purposes in mind: 1) to investigate the dimensions of the brother role in the family; 2) to provide family profession- als with additional information on the family role of bro- ther based on case study material; and 3) to investigate the meaning which individuals associate with the extra-famillial use of the term "brother." WWW Various male roles within both familial and social systems have been identified and researched to varying de- grees. These roles include those of husband. father, son, brother, grandfather, uncle, provider and worker. One of the least studied of these roles has been that of brother. Bossard and Boll (1960) have theorized that the years of being a brother, either to a brother and/or a siSter. pre- pare a male for early peer relationships and later adult relationships. If this is the case, the socializing factors which contribute to the role of brother were worth research- ing as they would provide further understanding of adult interpersonal relationships. Within the family studies area. our present knowledge of the brother role in adulthood is hampered not only be- cause of the lack of research, but also because: 1) most of the research available on siblings is of young children, and 2) most research has been limited to one member of the family. There is, therefore, a need to study the adult sibling relationship and how the present sibling role of brother has been developed and influenced by experiences in the childhood and teen years. With the exception Of Bossard and Boll (1960), our present knowledge of brother/brother and brother/sister relationships is the result of studies of two child families and has been gathered by interviewing or surveying only one sibling. In response to the urgings of family researchers (Adams 1972; Irish,1964; H888/ and Handel,1965; Hodgson and Lewis,1979) the present study sam- pled intergenerational family systems using a case study method in order to provide a more total picture Of the brother role in families. By studying more than one genera- tion of a family, the perspectives of each sibling and parents on the brother role were gained and a more compre- hensive understanding of the interactive nature of sibling contributions to the development Of the brother role was assessed. The case study approach as a qualitative research met- hod permitted the gathering of subjective perceptions held by family members relative to the nature and meaning of the brother role. In conjunction with the life history taking or case studies Of each family (an inductive methodology) the exploratory nature Of this study of brothers was aimed at generating researchable hypotheses for future research and contributing to the theoretical understanding of the adult brother role within the family. mama The study of men in their role as brothers in the family has been a neglected area Of research in family studies. This is not surprising considering the absence of research in the more general area of sibling relationships. Over the past 15 years the lack of research and discussion on sibling roles and interaction has been pointed out by a number of researchers (Irish,1964;Leichter, 1974; 'Hartup,1979; Arkin,1979; Ambromovitch,Corter and Lando 1979; Bank and Kahn,1982). These authors are in agreement that the nature and meaning of sibling interactions in family rela- tions are perhaps the most understudied area of family membership reciprocities, and that new insights into family interaction can be gained from studying sibling roles. As Hartup (1979, p.945) has stated: Sibling interaction may be rich in unique contribution to childhood socialization, since it is more egalitarian than parent-child interaction. Also, sibling interac- tion usually precedes interaction with children outside the family, thus serving as a bridge between family and the peer culture. Previous studies Of men as brothers have usually fo- cused on such issues as: 1) personality attributes, 2) finding differences between first and second born males (Study of Adult Development - Harvard University,1936-1940, McArthur,1956); 3) birth order as related to potential eminence and education achievement (Sir Francis Galton,1874; Clarke,1916; Cattell,1917; Terman,1925; Ellis,1926; Roe,1953; and Altus,1965); 4) or birth order as related to general social development and interaction (Toman,1969; Forer,1976). In general, the most frequently studied vari- ables relative to men as brothers have been family constel- lation and birth order as they relate to various achieve- ments and personality attributes. Not until very recently has anyone pursued the more general and fundamental issue of the meaning of the brother role in the family. William Arkin (1979) took what can be considered a pioneering step in this direction. His re- search was guided by questions probing the unique dynamics which characterize relationships between brothers as well as the different meanings brothers have for adult men. As a result of his informal discussions and interviews with both colleagues and students (ages 17 to 57), Arkin found that 'three defining characteristics or themes emerged around the role of brothers, namely: competitiveness between and among brothers, closeness or intimacy between and among brothers, and closeness between brothers and sisters. The world of brothers is primarily a competitive one held together by kinship which provides a "cooperative structure similar to that in corporations and the military where individuals compete with each other for advancement and recognition yet cooperate out of loyalty to the organi- zation"(Arkin, 1979.9.636). Competition was more obvious for male siblings of a close age relationship and diminished when age differences exceeded four years. The primacy of competition was found in the earlier research of Helen Koch (1955). She found that children (ages 5 to 7) with brothers were rated as more competitive, ambitious, enthusiastic and less wavering in decision-making than were children with sisters. In Arkin's study, closeness or intimacy was expressed in terms of loyalty and mutual aid rather than in the shar- ing of feelings. His subjects emphasized the "male" role over the "brother" role. The emphasis of the male role on self-reliance led brothers to define closeness as sharing common experiences and as loyalty rather than as intimacy and close friendship. The exception to this male role em- phasis was during periods of crisis in the family Of origin when intimacy and sharing with each other was usually exper- ienced. This emphasis of men on their male role versus their brother role is probably one of the greatest stumbling blocks in our ability to specifically focus on brother role characteristics, behaviors, and even the very nature and meaning of being a brother. Joseph Pleck (1975) asked the question: "Is brotherhood possible among men?" He pointed out that in order for men to achieve a brother-type rela- tionship with one another they would have to come to terms with the issue of competition. It is a definite block and has inhibiting effects on male-male intimacy and interpersonal relationships. According to Pleck, the socia- bility experienced by males at all stages of development is closely connected with male sex role training and performance, and is not characteristically a medium for self-exploration, personal growth, or the development of intimacy, processes which Pleck regards as more cOnducive for brother-type relationships among men (Pleck,1975). Even though Arkin (1979) and Pleck (1975) have sought to bring new attention to the male role of brother in the family and the extension of that role to social relation- ships with men, the field of family studies still lacks specific studies on men in their brother role within the family. In order to understand some of the dynamics opera- ting in the socialization of males as brothers it is helpful to consider what we know from general studies of siblings. It can be deduced from Helen Koch's (1955) findings on younger children that the presence of a brother in the sibling constellation engenders traits of competition and push for achievement. How much of this can be ascribed more to the socialization into the male role than the brother role is one of the confounding issues involved in brother role research. The fact that competition, as a characteris- tic Of brother-brother relationships, was mentioned so often in the research literature (Kock,1955; Hartley,1959; DeGolia,1973; Irish,1964; Adams, 1968; Pleck,1975; Arkin,1979) makes it an important characteristic to be con- sidered in the present study. Much of the research of socialization influences on siblings is framed within the theory of role modeling. Although the primary focus of researchers has been on the development of sex roles and the masculine and feminine characteristics of both boys and girls, the findings provide some indication of how the brother role may develop. The effect of role modeling has its greatest impact on the younger sibling who seeks to imitate and identify with an older brother or sister. Sutton-Smith and Rosenberg (1970) strongly suggested that each sibling is affected by the sex Of the other siblings and that these effects are most ob- vious in the case of the younger sibling. Helen Koch (1955) found that boys with slightly older sisters displayed more traditional feminine characteristics than boys with an older brother. This finding has been consistently confirmed in subsequent research (Brim, 1958; Sutton-Smith and Rosenberg,1970; Maccoby and Jacklin, 1974). In contrast, younger sisters with an older brother have been found to evidence greater degrees Of masculinity (Koch,1955; Brim,1958; Sutton-Smith and Rosenberg,1970). This latter finding may well indicate that brothers play a part in the sex role development of their sisters, thereby socializing them for future relationships with men. The Significant influence of sisters on brothers has been a recurrent finding among researchers. Adams (1968) found that closeness among Siblings appeared to be dependent on a sister or a sister-surrogate. This was verified by Arkin (1979, p.636): "In the role of sister, wife, mOther or girlfriend, women were the ones who kept brothers inform- ed of the intimate aspects of each others' lives." In addition, Arkin found that sisters or sister-surrogates not only influenced brother-brother relationships, but also the relationships men, as brother, had with other women: "In fact, sisters of men we talked to rather than their mothers, seemed, as peers, to be the facilitators of male awareness and sensitivity to the female world" (Arkin, 1979, p.636). This finding is supportive of Walter Tomans's (1970) earlier finding that the presence of a sister, particularly an Older sister, has an important influence on brothers establishing and maintaining successful interactions with women. The quality and success or non-success of later social rela- tionships (marriage, friendship, working relations) of men and women, according to Toman, is rooted in earlier sibling relationships. Arkin (1979, p.636) concluded his considera- tion of sister influences by stating that "contact with sisters seems to provide familiarity with expressiveness and relating and thus helps men in their future relations with women." This is supported by his parallel finding "that women also reported they have had better relationships with men who have had sisters"(p.636). The findings on sister influence have their relevance primarily in relationship to the development in males as brothers Of what Parsons (1942) first characterized as ex- pressive and instrumental behaviors which distinguish the sexes. It may well be that it is possession of well deve- loped expressive personality traits which aids a male in his performance Of the brother role in the family and outside the family in extra-familial interpersonal relationships with both men and women. As Pleck (1975) has pointed out, males generally have difficulty with intimacy, the sharing of feelings and interpersonal skills, each Of which has traditionally been associated more with expressive (feminine) personality traits than with traditionally mascu- line or instrumental personality traits. Closeness has also been a variable much studied rela- tive to sibling relationships, it being found that among siblings, the relationships between brothers were the least close (Adams,1968; Ross, Dalton and Milgram,1981; Ross and Milgram,1982). The evidence indicates that most siblings feel affectionately close and are supportive of each other throughout their adult lives (Adams,1968; Cicerelli, 1980). Sisters are found to be closer than brothers. Ross and Milgram (1982) found in their life-span study of fifty—five siblings (age 22 to 93 Years) that: The most powerful contributor to feelings of close- ness between individual siblings was the framework of the family in which siblings grew up. The sense of belonging to the family, and of being close to particular siblings, was, for most subjects, perma- nently affected by experience in childhood. (p.228) Factors contributing to closeness of siblings include close physical proximity (e.g., Shared bedrooms, age), emphasis on family unity and common activities, democratic child rearing practices, and shared activities and time together. During 10 adolescence siblings also engage in interactions which -con- tribute to closeness which carries over into adulthood; e.g., providing dates for each other, entering into discus- sions Of life issues, and continued modeling of behaviors which help in forging their identities within the family (Ross and Milgram, 1982). Given the generalized findings on closeness it can be expected that among the siblings studied brothers will evi- dence the least amount of closeness, and that close family unity would be reflected in the generalized closeness Of sibling relationships. In addition to the specific influence of sisters on brothers, there have been identified a number of functions which siblings provide for one another as part of their socializing process. These functions, according to Bank and Kahn (1975), permeate the life-cycle, for sibling relation- ships are a life-long process. Bank and Kahn delineate six principal functions which siblings perform in their rela- tionship with one another. These are: identification, differentiation, and mutual regulation, direct service, pioneering, and negotiation with parents. Identification is regarded as the "glue" of the sibling relationship. In the process of identification, one child sees himself or herself in the other and experiences life vicariously through the behavior of the other. This is a learning experience by which one child, i.e. the younger, expands on the possibili- ties of self by learning through an Older brother or 11 sister's experience. Diffezentiatign is the other side of the coin. Each child must come to regard himself/herself as unique and independent not only of the parents, but from their siblings, especially older ones, as well. If differ- entiation does not occur an unhealthy fusion can develop between siblings (particularly between twins) which can lead to serious personality disorders. Siblings may want to be like an Older brother or sister, but there should also be a healthy experience of wanting not to be like them. A third function which siblings perform for one another is what Bank and Kahn (1975, p.503) term flmntuai ngnia; tignfl, i.e. the process by which siblings serve as sounding boards for one another. In this process siblings "provide a safe laboratory for experimenting with new behavior where new roles are tried on, criticized, encouraged, or benevo- lently acknowledged before being used with parents or non- family peers." Siblings provide an Observing ego for one another that can exert an effective and corrective impact upon each other as part of the process of mutual regualtion. nicest senyice is the function whereby: "Siblings per- form valuable, tangible services for each other. ...They teach each other skills, lend each other money, manipulate powerful friendship rewards for one another, and serve as controllers of resources..." (Bank and Kahn 1975; 504). flfiigneezing seems to occur when one sibling initiates a process thereby giving permission to the others to follow accordingly" (Bank and Kahn 1975; 506). It is a question Of 12 who did it first. The sixth function suggested by Bank and Kahn is that of ngggiiating uiih panents. According to the authors siblings negotiate with parents in at least four different ways which are facilitated by coalitions: 1) balancing the power of the parents; 2) joining; 3) secret telling and tattling; and 4) translating. Several researchers have speculated that the experience a person has with their siblings during childhood and the teen years has an effect on their later adult relationships (Brim,1958; Toman,1969; Kemper,1966). Brim (1958) concluded his study, which reanalyzed Koch's data, by stating that "...the durable and considerable effects of sex of sibling on sex role learning thus seems warranted and leads one to consider problems such as the effect of sex of sibling on one's later role in the marital relationship, on career choices, and on other correlates of the adult sex role" (Brim,1958, p.14). Toman (1970), in agreement with Brim, contends that the quality and success or non-success of later social relationships, including marriage, friendships, and working relations, are rooted in earlier sibiling rela- tionships. Summau The question as to the nature and meaning Of the brother her role in the family, how it is perceived and fulfilled by brothers, and how this role is regarded by other family members, is certainly open to further research. 13 The fact is that none of the studies reviewed actually addressed in any depth the brother role in the family. Arkin (1979) has made an initial beginning which he recog- nizes as a "prolegomenon," and which is certainly a stimula- tor for further pursuing the issue of the brother role. From his research it can be noted that the brother role and relationship is marked by competition, camaraderie, support and loyalty, and a closeness which is defined as "sharing common experience." From both the social science and psychological perspec- tives on role modeling and identification, the evidence is present to support the generally accepted proposition that siblings definitely do have an effect on each other. The most studied effect is that Of cross-sex influence. In the case of brothers this influence is observable in the finding that sisters with an older brother evidence greater degrees of masculinity. Until quite recently (Bank and Kahn,1982; Lamb and Sutton-Smith,1982), the majority Of sibling studies have been either of young children or the elderly. .The life-span stages of adolescence and early and middle adult- hood have generally been neglected. Studies of adult sib- lings prior to 1979 (Arkin) confined themselves to birth order and family constellation research. The recent works Of Bank and Kahn (1982), Ross and Milgram (1982), Rosenberg (1982), and Cicirelli (1982) have taken additional advances in considering the complexity of sibling relationships. Arkin's preliminary work revealed that the issue Of the 14 brother role was far more complex than simple sibling posi- tion and age within the family constellation. The delinea- tion of six principal functions of sibling socialization-- identification, differentiation, mutual regulation, direct service, pioneering, and negotiation with parents (Bank and Kahn,1975) point out this complexity and indicate that the role of brothers in the family is the result of interactive processes occurring over the life-span. Most sibling studies, whether quantitative or qualita- tive in method, have usually gathered data from only one sibling of two child families. What is needed, and this was noted years ago by McArthur (1956) and achieved in a popular fashion by Fischel (1979) in her book, Sisiens, and excel- lently achieved by Bank and Kahn in The Sibling 89nd (1982) an eight year clinical study of siblings, is. information from as many of a family's siblings as possible. Even parental input would be beneficial in a sibling research model. In this way an intergenerational family picture can be obtained. Information from informants can be cross- checked and verified, and perspectives and viewpoints from a number of sources can enrich the quality of the research. This holistic family approach allows for an ecological or ecosystemic perspective on the sibling subsystem. Such an approach views the family as a system interacting with other components Of a total ecosystem. With an ecosystemic per- spective the similarities and differences of Sibling rela- tionships and the brother role within each distinctive 15 family can be analyzed given factors of class and culture, environment, and generational influences. Although it may be easy to delineate the need for a study of adult brother roles and relationships, and how early sibling relationship patterns influence brother- brother and man-woman relationships, the design of such an investigation is more difficult. One difficulty inherent in all studies of human behavior and relationship patterns is sorting' out the numerous variables which could be regarded as antecedent to certain behavioral roles. One interesting way of considering this difficulty is to recognize that once any of these factors enter into the consciousness of a person they become interrelated. Within the family where does the influence of parents leave Off and siblings, peers, and other significant persons begin? These personal influen- ces are intertwined, contributing to the total personality and role complex of the person. In order to sort out the various influences, the research task was to discover the subjective importance of siblings, parents, peers and signi- ficant others for the individual by asking them what he or she regards as the influence of particular persons and why. mmfiammalmmamk The conceptual framework for the present study was role theory as developed by such theorists as Biddle and Thomas (1966), and Biddle (1978). AS a conceptual framework for the study Of social phenomena, role theory has its 16 historical roots in symbolic interactionism with which it shares a number of ideas and concepts. Role theory proposes that individuals in social groups hold certain positions. Within the family such positions would be father/ husband, mother/wife, son/brother, daughter/sister. Each position is composed of various roles to be fulfilled by the person in the particular position. The parameters of each role are seen to be governed by a set of norms or behavioral expectations that set one role apart from another. These three concepts of position, role, and norm are interrelated and constitute the fundamental buil- ding blocks of role theory. Definitions of the concept of role have been diverse. Biddle and ThOmas (1966) noted that: The idea of role has been used to denote prescription, description, evaluation, and action; it has referred to covert and overt processes to the behavior Of self and others, to the behavior of an individual versus that which is directed to him. Perhaps the most common definition is that role is a set of prescriptions defining what the behaviors of a position member should be. But this much agreement is at best an oasis in a des- ert Of diverging opinion. A careful review of the definitions reveals, however, that there is one nearly universal common denominator, namely, that the concept pertains to the behavior of particular individuals (p.29). Burr, Leigh, Day and Constantine (1979), addressing them- selves to the definition of the concept of role, have sug- gested that the most fundamental part of a definition of role is that it is "a more or less integrated set of social norms that are distinguishable from other sets Of norms that 17 constitute other roles" (p.54). In turn. they describe social norms as beliefs or expectations that people ought or ought not to behave in certain ways. Burr et al.(1979) point out that a number of terms have arisen to explain the same phenomenon Of role. These terms include role enactment, role performance, role behavior, and role competence. Further ambiguity exists around the con- cept of role which has to do with how much roles are strict- ly prescribed and how much flexibility is present for impro- vising or role making. It was Turner (1962) who suggested that much of what people do. even in structured role situa- tions,/ is "role making." Role making is described as the improvising. exploring, and judging of what is appropriate on the basis Of the situation and the response of others at the moment rather than on the basis of previously learned scripts or a detailed set of expectations (Burr et al. 1979). Aldous (1978) in her discussion of sibling roles within the family employs the concept of role making to characterize sibling role enactment. She states: "... be- cause sibling roles are not so scripted by norms... sib- lings engage in more role making" (p.308). In role making, siblings try out varieties Of behaviors on one another. In addition to the variety of terms used to describe the phenomenon of role there is the overlapping use in the literature Of the terms "position" and "role." For exam- ple, we refer to the father role and the mother role; yet these roles denote at the same time family positions which 18 involve the performance of various roles such as breadwin- ner, protector, nurturer, and care-giver. Linton (1936) made a classic distinction between these terms by pointing out that role and position are inseparable. Position is simply a collection of rights and duties and is distinct from the individual who may occupy it. Role represents the dynamic aspect of position. In this study the term brother position will designate that static, structured place a male holds within the family by reason of being related to anot- her sibling. . The term brother role will refer to the more dynamic aspect of being a brother, i.e. the whole complex of behaviors and functions, expectations or norms, which sur- round the very nature of being a brother. Within the conceptual framework of role theory it is important to realize that.the concept of role is an abstract term and, for research purposes, more "measurable" variables should be designated. The most appropriate variables for the present study include consensus and clarity of role expectations, and role making. 511mm If Aldous (1978) is correct in stating that Sibling roles are not clearly scripted by norms then it should follow that we can expect to find both low consensus and the presence of ambiguity concerning the nature and meaning Of the brother role in the family. The central question within a role theory framework for the present research is: what is 19 the brother role? The very question involves the discovery of what constitutes that set of integrated expectations (norms) which define the nature of the brother role within the family system. Implied in such a search is the very real possibility that there is no set of integrated expecta- tions. The very nature of the brother role will also be influenced by the cultural meanings held by brothers and other family members, as well as by the perceptions and expectations of what family members view as behaviors which constitute "being a brother." 2O CHAPTER II METHODS AND PROCEDURES The present Chapter considers both the methods and procedures followed in conducting this study on the adult brother role. The various Objectives, questions, and propo- sitions used to delineate the study are presented. The latter part of the chapter considers the study's sampling method, a description of the instruments used, and the ' method Of data analysis. W The present research on the brother role was conducted with three general purposes in mind: 1) to investigate the dimensions Of the adult brother role in the family; 2) to provide family professionals with additional information on the family role of brothers based on case study material; and 3) to explore, in a preliminary way, the meaning which individuals associate with the extra-familial use of the term "brother." More specifically the Objectives which guided the research investigation were: 21 3. 4. In of the followi 1. 2. to examine the nature, meaning, functions and expec- tations of the role of brothers in the family system through a case study Of five families. to identify the consequent effects Of the brother role on extra-familial relationships with men and women during adulthood. to explore the individual perspective on the extra- familial social defintions and meanings of the term "brother". to develop hypotheses for future research concerning the role of brother within the family system and extra-familial social systems. W order to reach the objectives in this investigation adult brother role within the family system, the ng questions were pursued: What does {it mean to be a brother within a family? What are the functions that brothers perform within the family system? What are “the individual and familial expectations associated with the role of being a brother? What do the male siblings. included in this study. perceive as the influence of their siblings on their role development as brothers and on their interper- sonal relationships with men and women in adult life? What do family members mean when they use the term "brother"? 22 Wm Based on the review of the literature, which focused primarily on sibling relationships during childhood, general research propositions were developed. These propositions were used to organize the data for analysis. 1. 1a. 1b. 1c. 1d. 4a. 4b. The degree of sibling affect in adult life that emerges from sibling interaction is influenced by the following variables: sex, age, spacing of siblings. early child- hood affect. and degree of family cohesion. Positive relationships between siblings in childhood will lead to positive sibling relationships in adulthood. Siblings who perceive themselves as emotionally close to a particular sibling will be more likely to imitate that sibling's behavior. Closeness, as expressed among brothers. will be described more in terms of loyalty to family and mutual aid rather than as sharing of feelings. dreams. or goals with one another. Family activities and traditions communicated across generations can serve to build the sense of family with a resultant closeness being built among the siblings. Sibling roles are not clearly scripted by norms and it can be expected that both within and among families there will be found both low consensus and ambiguity concerning the nature and meaning of the brother role in the family. Expectations concerning the role of brothers in the family will be the result of familial history and exper- ience and will be expressed as a mental set of ideas about what a brother is or should be. As personality attributes or status (age.sex) attributes vary. children will utilize such attributes to establish a unique "identity" with the family. Having a strong identity of being a brother within the family system will lead to actions and behaviors with other siblings which serve to further build the bond of sibling relationships. Labels or nicknames given to siblings during childhood by parents or by each other will carry over into adult years and continue to characterize the sibling relationship. 23 4c. The experience of being a brother in a family will vary according to the structure of the sibling constellation and sibling position. 5. Assimilation of sex roles in the sibling complex facili- tated by the presence Of opposite sex members with the greatest impact being from elder to younger siblings. 5a. Brothers with Older sister(s) will develop more expres- sive or feminine personality characteristics than brothers without older sister(s). 6. Selfhood as a sibling is fostered by the dual process Of identifying with siblings in certain areas and rejecting or differentiating from them in other areas. 6a. Younger brothers in a family will tend to identify with and learn their role in the family from older brother(s). 7. Sibling conflict in adult years is more likely to exist when factors of parental favoritism, family comparisons, and intense rivalry among siblings exists in the family of origin during childhood. Yaniahls_23£iniilan§ The dependent variables in this study were: 1) the nature of the adult brother role in the family, nature being the inherent character of being a brother as defined by meaning, expectations, functions, and socialization experi- ences; 2) participation in brotherhood organizations; 3) satisfaction in interpersonal adult relationships; and, 4) the social meaning of the term "brother." The independent variables are: 1) the family system; 2) the sibling subsys- tem; 3) the parental system; 4) presence of surrogate brothers or sisters; 5) sibling constellation;6) social class Of family of origin and of siblings; 7) education; 8) marital status; and 9) personality attributes of masculini- ty, femininity and androgyny. 24 For clarity in the research process and for explaining the phenomenon under investigation, conceptual and opera- tional definitions of all major variables were developed. Rgig refers to that set Of integrated behaviors which consist of some socially shared expectations and which allow considerable room for individual differences (Burr et al. 1979). Within this study the concept of role was operation- alized by either directly asking respondents what expecta- tions they have for various family members. or by extracting from the interview tapes statements of expectation which describe brother roles. R91: status refers to the value which a person attaches to a particular role position. Role status was assessed by noting throughout the interview the importance which a re- spondent attached to having a brother. A respondent's atti- tude toward a brother was verified when appropriate. by asking an indirect ques tion similar to: "It sounds like your brother was an important person in your family." (Theodorsen and Theodorsen 1969.Pp.415-16) (See Interview Guide for Siblings(IGS). questions 23.24.39) Role position refers to the elements of a social system to which are assigned certain roles. In the family, posi- tions include: husband, wife, father, mother, daughter, sister, son and brother. Role position was identified in the sociodemographic questions which ask about structural relationship to other family members. (See Appendix M) 25 Rnig_inaking refers to the process whereby persons impro- vise, explore, and judge what is appropriate on the basis of the situation and the responses of others at the moment rather than on the basis of a set of previously learned scripts or detailed set Of expectations (Turner 1962). Role making was assessed by the following procedure: when a male/brother respondent does not offer, or is unable to identify definite "learned" expectations of the brother role, those behaviors which he does perform as a brother are assumed to be his personal improvising of what is appro- priate as a brother in certain situations. (IGS; 26.27) Ngnm§_ refer to the behavioral expectations that set one role apart from another. They are the socially and cul- turally defined "ought to's" of behavior that accompany a social role (Aldous.1978) The particular norms held by family members for the the brother role were assessed by asking respondents what they expected from a brother, as opposed to what they expected from a sister. (IGP; 9.10) (IGS; 16-22,44) Clarity of role expectations refers to how ambiguous or hazy versus how identifiable certain role expectations are (Cottrell 1942). When individuals are not sure of what to do expectations have low clarity. When expectations are clear cut or Obvious there is high clarity (Burr et al. 1979). Clarity Of role expectations was determined by ana- lyzing a subject's ability to verbalize what is and what is not expected Of a brother. (IGS; 16-18) 26 Natgpg Qt tcgtner role in the family refers to the inhe- rent character or basic constitution of being a brother. It includes those aspects of role in general,i.e. a set of integrated behaviors. Nature Of the brother role in the family was assessed by the meaning the role has for family members and by the various functions performed by brothers as part of the family system. (IGS; 26-27) Sgcial meaning 9: "bcother" outstde the {amity refers to the mental meaning and value that occurs within the minds of persons when presented with the term "brother." Individual understanding of the social meaning of the term was assessed on the basis Of the following question: "When you hear the term "brother" used to describe a relationship outside of the family. does it have any particular meaning for you?" (IGS; 48) 1 WWW refers to the subjectively experienced phenomenon Of pleasure versus dis- pleasure, contentment versus discontentment, or happiness versus unhappiness (Burr et a1. 1979). Satisfaction with interpersonal relationships was assessed in two ways: 1)directly through an interview question which asked about how satisfying various interpersonal relationships were for the person; and 2) indirectly through the Personality Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ) which is based on the assump- tion that certain personality attributes contribute to satisfying interpersonal relationships. (IGS;28-31) 27 Brotherhood organization refers to those social groups of males which profess some degree of fraternal relationship characterized by loyalty, rituals, and consistent interac- tion which is governed by some set of norms. Determination of membership in such brotherhood organizations was estab- lished by a direct question about membership and type of involvement in fraternal type societies.(IGP;12) (IGS;47-48) Egmily, system refers to that "organizationally complex, open, adaptive and information-processing" social system called the family (Kantor and Lehr.196). Like all_ social systems the family is composed of different parts (members) having different roles which are "directly or indirectly related to one another in a network of reciprocal causal effects...in a reasonably stable way during any particular period of time" (Kantor and Lehr.1976). Within this study those persons who were identified by respondents as being a part of their family were considered the family system possessing those characteristics commonly attributed to social systems as described above. Each family system was represented graphically through a family genogram. (See Ch.3) gnginal position refers to the birth position Of each child within the family, i.e. first or oldest, second or middle, last or youngest. Determination of ordinal position was made based on sociodemographic information about the ages of siblings. (see Appendix M) 28 Sitiing cgnsteiiatigns refers to the variety of sibling combinations. based on ordinal (birth) position and sex. which are possible within a family system (Toman.1969). For example. in a family of two siblings four different constel- lations are possible: brother-brother, brother-sister, sis- ter-brother, or sister-sister. The sibling constellation for each family within the study was identified through the family genogram. (see Ch.3) §ibiing_ngi§tinnsnip refers to the nature of the interac- tion between brothers and sisters (Schvaneveldt and Ihinger,1979). The sibling relationship was assessed based on self and other descriptions of how well siblings got along, and how close or emotionally bonded they were to each other as brothers and sisters. (IGP;19-22) (IGS;12-13) Sibling__§nnsy§tem, refers to that part of the family system composed Of brothers and/or sisters who are related by blood. The sibling subsystem was identified through a sociodemographic question. (see Appendix M) Sgcnggate bnotnegs and sistecs refer to those individuals within a person's familial and extra-familial environment who are perceived of and related to as "being like a brot- her" or "being like a sister." Existence of surrogate siblings was determined by asking each respondent if there were persons in their life, other than siblings. whom they regard as being "like a brother" or "like a sister." (IGP;11) (IGS;32) Sibling functions refer to those fundamental behaviors 29 which sibling perform for one another within the socializing process. Sibling functions were identified through an analy- sis of interview information based on questions concerning what kinds of things respondents did (do) for each other in the course of growing up and which they continue to do for one another. (IGS;19-22.40) Identifiigatign is that sibling function which refers to the learning process among siblings through which one child sees himself/herself in the other and experiences life vica- riously through the behavior of the other. and begins to expand on possibilities for himself/herself by learning through a brother or sister's experiences (Bank and Kahn.1975). Identification as a function among siblings was recognized as operative when respondent spoke of himself or’ herself as being like or wanting to be like another sibling. (IGS;2-5.9) Diifiengntiatinn is that sibling function which refers to the process among siblings whereby each child comes to regard himself/ herself as unique and independent from their siblings, especially from older ones (Bank and Kahn.1975). Differentiation as a function among siblings was recognized as operative when the respondent spoke of himself/herself as being unique and different from their other siblings. (IGS;2-5-9) Mutual regulatign refers to the dynamic process whereby siblings serve as sounding boards for one another, providing an Observing ego for one another that can exert an effective and corrective impact upon and for each other (Bank and Kahn,1975). As a function among siblings it was recognized as operative when a respondent related instances of when a sibling served as a "sounding board" or exerted effective or corrective impact on them. (IGS;43) Dicegt sezyige refers to that process by which siblings pervaluable and tangible services for one another. These include: teaching skills, lending money, helping with pro- jects. Direct service was recognized by asking questions about what siblings do for one another. Eigneecing refers to that process whereby "one sibling initiates a process opening up the possibility to the other sibs to follow accordingly. Pioneering was recognized as operative by asking questions about modeling and imitation. 30 Pepsppglgty Type refers to that description of an indivi- dual which summarizes that complex of attributes which are used to describe his or her personality. Four personality types are designated: masculine, feminine, androgynous, and undifferentiated. fleeeniine refers to that psychological dimension of the human personality which exists in both males and females to some degree, and has been traditionally associated with the principle of agency (Bakan.1966) and instrumentality (Parsons,1942; Spence and Helmreich,1978). Masculine was defined as one who scored above the median on the masculini- ty scale Of the Personality Attributes Questionnaire (PAO). Feminine refers to that psychological dimension Of the human personality which exists in both males and females to some degree, and has been traditionally associated with the principles of communion (Bakan.1966) and expressiveness (Parson,1942; Spence and Helmreich.1978). Feminine was defined as one who scored above the median on the feminini- ty scale of the Personality Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ). Annneeynene refers to a person who combines within his or her personality both masculine and feminine elements or attributes (Sanford.1981). The androgynous individual was defined as one who scored above the median on both the masculinity and femininity scales of the Personality Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ). Unnififenentieten is the category within the PAQ classifi- cation system. as developed by Spence and Helmreich (1978) which describes a personality type for individuals who score below the median on both the Masculine and Feminine scales. Research Method DEESLIRLIQD An edited life history method was used in the gathering of the data for addressing the research questions. The key feature of an edited life history or case study is the continual interspersing of comments, explanation, and ques- tions by someone other than the focal subject (Denzin,1970,p.223). Since the life history method can be 31 conceived Of as a triangulated research technique (Denzin,1970), the prolonged interview was the primary stra- tegy for combining observations, questionnaires, introspec- tive and retrospective reports and instrument measures. In triangulated research the finding of one method tends to reinforce and verify or disconfirm the findings of another method. Since two generations Of a family, and in particu- lar the sibling subsystem of the second generation, consti- tuted the sampling unity, interview and questionnaire data obtained from each family member served to provide valida- tion and triangulation of perspectives for interpreting the total family history, and contributed to understanding the sibling subsystem within a particular family and how the brother role was viewed. 1121212221.: The case study or life history method "may be the best available technique for studying such important social psy- chological processes as adult socialization, the emergence of group and organization structure. the rise and decline of social relationships, and the situational responses of the self to daily interaction contingencies"(Denzin,1970). Given the complex processes operative within the family system it followed that it was the best method for studying family systems and their subsystems. According to Park (1927) it is the purpose of the life history method to get a record of the inner life experience Of the subject. Thus. the method affords the opportunity to 32 pursue in depth the details, interactions, and personal perspectives of persons involved in family and group situa- tions. When it is a question of exploring the nature and meaning of a research problem the case study approach per- mits the gathering of subjective data from which the exper- ience and definitions held by each person. or the group as a unit, can be attained. The subjective experiences and re- flections held by each person represent their perspective as reality. This is an important consideration, for the case study method rests on the assumption that records of man's subjective experience form the core data of sociology (Denzin,1970, pp.256-257). W The life history or case study method, which includes the acquiring of demographic information, interview informa- tion, participant Observations, and even Objective measures, permits the merger of several discrete methodologies into a single strategy. The case study method allows for a more in depth approach of fewer cases. Because the nature Of the present study was exploratory there was no prime interest in generalizing to larger populations. The intent ‘was to probe, as deeply as possible, the family life experience of a few persons as to the nature and meaning of the adult brother role in the family. With their life experience and reflections as a base, a further intent was to generate hypotheses which could be of use in future research on the brother role and sibling relationships. 33 By its very nature the case study method and data obtained relied upon the memory of the subject. The re- searcher is limited in obtaining truly accurate accounts by the memory recall of the subject. The subject's memory may have faded and his/her recall of events. their personal role in the events, and what meaning occurrences or persons had for them at the time, may lead to an incorrect presentation Of the facts. By employing the use of two interviews and the interviewing of all family members the limitation of memory recall can be minimized to a certain degree. In the case. Of elderly parents who are interviewed there may be a problem of memory recall. It is fairly well recognized. that an elderly person's memory of distant events is Often sharper than of events Of recent occurrence. More recent evidence indicates that memory recall may be also due to meaningfulness of the event, and to a person's health sta- tus. Other limitations are also present in the method. In life history taking the subject may, given his/her self stance, choose to ignore certain aspects of their life and family relationships, thereby not providing certain informa- tion to the researcher. This nondisclosure can hamper the acquiring of a full picture of a person's history. Also. subjects may distort what is remembered to make themselves 'look good' or so focus on negative or tragic aspects of family relationships to give a one sided picture. However. this particular limitation of a subject's recall as to the 34 objectivity of an event or relationship is minimized in the light of a principle of life history taking, i.e. "that the Objectivity of a recalled event is of less value than is its subjective impact on the person recalling it" (Denzin,1970,p.245). The limitations of nondisclosure or distortion can also be minimized given the triangulation of data sources and research techniques. Through this strategy the findings of one method and/or the perspectives of a number of family members tend to reinforce, verify, or disconfirm the findings Of another method or information provided by another family member. There also exists a limitation relative to the resear- cher himself, i.e. the recall of interview information. This limitation was minimized by using tape recorded inter- views. W Ccitepig The families in this research study on the adult brother role were selected from complete families residing within a major city in southeastern Idaho. Families were selected according to a set of criteria which were developed by the researcher. In all. seven criteria were designated: 1. the family must have more than two living siblings. age 20 and Older, at least one of whom is a male; 35 2. at least one parent muSt be alive and available for interviewing; 3. the majority of siblings must live within a reason- able distance for accessibility for personal inter- views (reasonable distance is here defined as no more than 3 hours driving time one way); 4. age differences between any two siblings may not exceed five years and no two siblings may be the same age (i.e. twins); 5. adult siblings to be interviewed must have had both natural parents present during their childhood form- ative years (birth - 12 years); 6. all siblings within the family must be blood re- lated; 7. willingness to participate in both interviews and complete all instruments. The sampling strategy for Obtaining a list Of possible families which met the criteria for selection was based on personal referrals. Contact was made with identified persons within the city's community who were known to have consider- able contact and knowledge Of a variety Of families. Per- sons contacted included: the Director and staff of a local family counseling center (non-clinical families whom they knew personally were requested); pastors and ministers of churches; a private elementary school Principal; the coordi- nator Of a neighborhood senior citizens center; and a long 36 time community resident who does volunteer work within the city. An explanation of the study and a list Of the crite- ria for selection were given to each of the persons listed above. They were requested to provide this researcher with the names of families whom they knew met or possibly met the designated sampling criteria. The Objective was to compile a list of approximately 40 families. An initial list of 66 families was obtained as a result Of this procedure. WW Personal contaCt by telephone was made with a member of each of the referred families. In all but one case this was a husband or wife in the parent generation. During this initial contact preliminary introductions were accomplished and the person was informed of how their name was obtained. If the person indicated any interest at all about the study a few questions were asked to verify if the family met the criteria for inclusion in the study. Of the sixty-six family members contacted, only twenty met all of the crite- ria. Another twelve families met nearly all Of the criteria either having the youngest child being 18 or 19 years Old, or more than 5 years between any two siblings. These fami- lies were assigned to an alternate list in case of refusals among the twenty families meeting the criteria. During this initial phone contact phase Of the sampling only three refusals were encountered. Information Obtained from this initial phone contact was recorded on a Phone Contact Sheet (see Appendix A). 37 Based on previous research concerning siblings (Bossard and Boll,1960; Toman,1969; Brim,1958), it was known that different sibling constellations evidence various character- istics. Selecting families with varying constellation pat- terns allowed for a more optimal investigation and testing Of previous research findings. an enhancement of the com- parative nature of the study, and an increased possibility Of finding "negative cases", a step central to the inductive method of research. The twenty families which met the criteria were then stratified according to sibling constel- lation patterns. Five basic patterns emerged and distin- guished the groups of families: 1) all brothers (A-B); 2) oldest brother with younger brothers and sisters (OB-BS); 3)Older brothers with younger. sister (OBB-S); 4)oldest sister with younger brothers (OS-BB); and 5) older sisters with younger brother (OSS-B). Once families were stratified according to sibling constellation. a purposeful selection process was followed in the determination of which family in each constellation group would be contacted first to request their participation in the study. The purposeful selection was based on what the researcher determined to be the opti- mum hierarchy Of families. The ordering of families accor- ding to this optimum hierarchy was accomplished with the assistance Of an unbiased research consultant and based on certain criteria. Families were ordered on two variables: 1) number of brothers in the family; and 2) accessibility for interview. Using these two variables, families in each 38 constellation group were ordered, and contact with them was made according to this order. Of the first five families to be contacted for participation only one family was excluded, and this was due to internal family problems. In this particular group the second family was then contacted and consented to participate. Consent for participation at this stage of the sampling procedure was verbal and via telephone. Following verbal consent a home appointment was made with the contacted family member. At this time the purpose of the study was explained more fully. indicating what participation in the study would involve. Each person contacted in this manner agreed to participate and signed a prepared Consent Form (see Appendix B). During this visit the names. addresses. and telephone numbers Of the family members were Obtained. A letter explaining the study (see Appendix C) was then sent to each family member. This letter also requested their participaton in the study. Along with the letter of infor- mation and request a personally signed letter from the family member initially contacted was included as a means of introducing the researcher to the other family members(see Appendix D). Approximately five days following the mailing of the letter, a telephone contact was made with each family member to answer any questions about the study and Obtain verbal consent for participation in the study. Only when all or a majority(1) Of the siblings in each family verbally consented to participate in the study was the family con- 39 sidered to be an actual participant. A second telephone call was made to establish a date and time for the first interview. Following verbal consent, a letter verifying the verbal agreement was sent to each person. This letter also included a list of topic areas for participants to think about prior to the first interview. (see Appendix E for follow-up letter and topic areas; Appendix K for a detailed schedule of contacts made during the sampling process.) WW Iptepview Gptdes Two interview guides were developed specifically for the study of the adult brother role in the family. Inter- view Guide P(Parents) was used with parents and Interview Guide S(Siblings) was used with siblings. (see Appendices F and G) Both sets Of interview questions were developed during the latter half of 1981 and were the result of a pilot study of one family in the summer of that year on the role of the brother in the family. Based on the experience of this pilot study, which simply used a list of topic areas to guide the interview process a need to have a more 1Majority. for the purposes of this study. meant a positive response in any Of the following proportions depending upon the size Of the family - 2 out of 3; 3 out of 4; 3 out of 5; 4 out of 6; 4 out of 7; 5 out of 8. etc. Of those siblings giving a positive response at least one was a brother. 40 tightly structured series of open-ended questions in order to insure the acquisition Of data on core topic areas from all family members interviewed was acknowledged. Addition- , al questions, based on responses to the interview guide questions, were also asked. These varied with each respon- dent. The Interview Guides were the principal instruments used for gathering data. Interview Guide P contains thirty- two open-ended questions asked of the parent generation. Topic areas covered in parent interviews included: a his- tory Of the family of origin and family of procreation, characteristics of family Of origin and family of procrea- tion, a description of siblings and various aspects of sib- ling relations, and a description of their children and their relationships with one another as children and now as adults (competition, rivalry, expectations, favoritism and comparisons). The main intent of the questions in Interview Guide P was to secure a picture of how parents view their families of origin and family of procreation, especially relative to brother and sister relationships in both genera- tions. Interview Guide S(Siblings) contains 52 open-ended questions covering a wide range of topic areas from early childhood to present adult status. The principal focus was on the nature of the sibling relationship and the meaning and influence of brothers in the family, Specific topic areas included: descriptions of the characteristics of each 41 sibling, activities and experiencies shared together, roles within the family, the influence of siblings on one another, expectations, the meaning of brothers, influence of spouses on sibling relations, and extra-familial brother-type rela- tionships. Adult Brot er Scal ABS The Adult Brother Scale is a five item semantic differ- ential scale designed for use and testing in this study. It consists of five statements which are followed by bipolar phrases on a 10 point scale. Subjects were asked to assign a value from 1 to 10 for each person or relationship indicated on the list following each statement (see Appendix H). Subjects assigned a value for both family and non-family members on the following five items: Involvement, Support/ Encouragement, Trust/Intimacy, Bonding/Closeness, and Respect. The present version of the Adult Brother Scale was developed by the researcher from answers to the question: "Please describe in a few sentences what the term 'brother' means to you." This question was responded to as part of a larger questionnaire administered, on a volunteer basis, to seventy Catholic priests and brothers who were members of the smae Religious Order. Forty responses were received. The descriptions given were analyzed and those which were religiously oriented were excluded. Using the remaining statements, a concept analysis was performed. i.e. what key words were used most frequently to describe the meaning of 42 the term "brother." The five characteristics used in the Adult Brother Scale represented the synthesis Of the words or phrases used to describe a brother. As an instrument the Adult Brother Scale has not been previously tested. It has not been tested for validity or reliability in discriminating brother role characteristics from any other role characteristics. For the purpose Of the present study it was used in conjunction with all other data sources to help shed light on the research questions of what does it mean to be a brother. W The Personality Attributes Questionnaire ,(PAQ, see Appendix I) developed by Janet Spence and Robert Helmreich (1978), is a conventional self-report measure Of socioaf— fective instrumental and expressive traits. According to the theoretical conception outlined by Spence and Helmreich (1979), these traits are "internally located predispositions that combine with situational variables and other person variables to determine behavior but are not themselves iden- tical to behavior"(p.1632). The PAQ is composed of twenty- four bipolar items describing personal characteristics on each of which respondents are to rate themselves or rate others on a five point scale (0-4). It is divided into three eight item scales, labeled Masculinity (M). Femininity (F), and Masculinity-Femininity (M-F). "Each item is scored from O to 4, a high score on items assigned to the M and M-F 43 scales indicating an extreme masculine response and a high score on the F scale items indicating an extreme feminine response. Total scores are obtained on each scale by adding the individual's scores on each of the eight items. The range of possible values is thus 0 to 32 for each scale" (Spence and Helmreich,1978,p.32). The scales have been demonstrated to discriminate between the sexes in diverse populations, varying in age, ethnicity and social class, thus justifying the use of the labels "masculinity" and "femininity" (Helmreich, Spence and Halahan, 1979). The authors note that the PAQ is made up of items describing characteristics that are not only commonly be- lieved to differentiate the sexes but on which men and women tend to report themselves as differing. A criterion used for inclusion Of items on the PAQ was that the item or attribute be more characteristic of one sex than of the other but socially desirable in both. The items on the M scale refer largely to instrumental, agentic characteristics while items on the F scale refer mostly to expressive. communal attributes. The content of items on the M-F scale are mixed, containing items that could be classified as agentic, as communal. or as a combination of both. Spence and Helmreich (1978) note that the items on the M-F scale could have been assigned to either the M or F scales, but analysis of their data, based on part-whole correlation, suggest that the M-F items are more related to each other than to either M or F scales. Persons scoring high in M and 44 low in F are considered more masculine (instrumental). In- dividuals scoring low in M and high in F are seen as more feminine (expressive). Men and women scoring both high in M and high in F are considered androgynous and thus more behaviorally flexible. Persons attaining low M and low F scores are designated as undifferentiated. The present 24 item instrument is a shortened form of the full version Of the PAQ which contains 55 bipolar items drawn from a pool of over 130 items. The evidence from studies conducted by Spence and Helmreich (1978; 1979) sug- gest that the PAO has both construct and predictive validity as measures of instrumental (masculine) and expressive (feminine) attributes. In testing the reliability of the short form, Spence and Helmreich found that the correlations between the full scale scores and the eight-item scale version were .93, .93 and .91 for M, F, and M-F respective- ly. For a sample of students administered the short form. the Cronbach alphas were .85, .82 and .78 for M, F and M-F respectively. Spence and Helmreich (1978. p.35) state that despite the brevity the shorter scales are "satisfactorily reliable." The PAQ was chosen over other similar instruments. e.g. the Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI). because of availability and the reported observation that both instruments are some- what comparable. In addition, Bem has made changes to her instrument bringing it more in line with the PAQ (Helmreich. Spence and Halahan. 1979). 45 The Personality Attributes Questionnaire was used in two ways in this study: 1) as a measure Of instrumental and expressive personality traits for all members Of the fami- lies interviewed; and 2)as a measure which could possibly indicate satisfaction with interpersonal relationships. Comparisons were made among family members, and in the case of the brothers in each family. scores were compared with interview data concerning their personality. QueStions guiding the comparisons of brother scores were: 1) do brot- hers who score high on the M and M-F Scales describe them- selves and are they described by others in highly tradition- al male sex role terms? and 2) do brothers who score high on the F Scale describe themselves and are they described by others in terms which are not traditionally associated with the male sex role? Pleck (1975) has pointed out that socia- bility experienced by males is closely connected with male sex role training and performance and is not characteris- tically a medium for self-exploration, personal growth, or the development Of intimacy, processes more conducive to brother-type relationships among men. If this is truly the case, it can be hypothesized that males who possess more expressive personality traits, i.e. those who score high on the F scale or who can be described as androgynous (M-F). may personally experience more satisfaction with interper- sonal relationships and be perceived by others as having satisfying interpersonal relationships. 46 W The process of interviewing family members was conduc- ted in each subject's home with the exception Of one first interview with a sister which was held in her parents home [subject was in town on business and lived in a neighboring state]. On the average, first interviews ranged in time from 1 1/2 to 2 hours. Second interviews ranged in time from 45 minutes to 1 1/2 hours. All interviews were tape recorded with the written permission of the subject.(2) After reviewing with the individual family member the purpose Of the study, written consent for participation was obtained to proceed with the interview. At the time of the first interview. demographic and family structural relation- ship data were obtained and recorded in writing using a prepared questionnaire form adapted for use in the study. The remainder of the interview was tape recorded. At the conclusion of the first interview, copies of the Personality Attributes Questionnaire and the Adult Brother \ 2 It should be noted that the sole interviewer was the researcher who is a Catholic priest. This factor of identi- ty was fully known by all subjects. The question of resear- cher effect on the subjects and interviews was a continuing consideration. If any. the effect of being explicitly iden- tified as a Priest was positive. The clerical status car- ried with it a respect for confidentiality and it was felt that the respondents were quite honest and open in sharing information and feelings about their family members. In addition it is believed that being a Priest enhanced access to each of the families. Manner of dress varied from person to person. and generation to generation. depending upon the researcher's belief as to what would be most comfortable for the respondent. 47 Scale were given to the respondent. Explanations and an- swers to questions were provided. Respondents were reques- ted tO complete both instruments by the time of the second interview. Family members were requested not to discuss responses to the instruments with one another until after the second interview. However, control over this request was impossible and family members did see each other between interviews. Second interviews were"scheduled, on the aver- age, tO be held two weeks after the first interview. Due to a hospitalization in one family and vacation schedules in two other cases the time between interviews was longer than two weeks for these families. In five instances there was a space of three weeks between interviews. With the exception of one family, first interviews with parents preceded inter- views with their children. This exception was due to a hospitalization, and necessitated interviewing the parents after first interviewing their children. First interviews with parents were conducted separately, i.e. the list of first interview questions on family of origin were asked continuously and separately of each parent. In four out Of five cases the partner was present for the questioning and would from time to time make additional or clarifying com- ments about his/her spouse's family. In the fifth case the spouse was deceased. The presence of both spouses for the first section of the parental interview, which dealt with material on the family Of origin, proved to be beneficial since additional and/or clarifying data was Obtained. 48 Twenty-seven out Of twenty-eight members Of the five fami- lies were interviewed. The 28th member, the oldest brother in his family, completed the PAQ and ABS and provided the demographic information, but was not personally interviewed mainly due to work schedule involving frequent out of state assignments. However, this particular brother, using the topic outline sheet mailed to him, provided seven pages Of written responses to the topic areas. Data Applypis Two fundamental research methods exist as approaches to the research task. An individual can approach research endeavors either deductively or inductively. The deductive method Of research is the process Of reasoning from general tenets to more particular conclusions, usually based on previous research or theoretical propositions. . Deduction begins with theoretical hypotheses which guide the gathering of data about a particular phenomenon. Through a testing of the hypotheses this method moves toward a conclusion either confirming or disconfirming the proposed hypotheses. The inductive method begins with the gathering of facts relevant to a particular phenomenon, proceeds through formulation and reformulation of working hypotheses to explain the facts, and aims at developing a theory to integrate related hypo- theses which have proved to be explanatory (Glaser and Strauss, 1965,1967; Denzin,1970; Manning,1971). Since the inductive method proceeds from fact to theory it involves 49 the process of inferring a more general conclusion from observation or analysis Of a number of discrete facts. One objective of this process of analysis is to establish a framework which integrates the emerging hypotheses which develop during the data collection process. The responsibi- lity of the researcher using an inductive method is to make sure that his theory is grounded in reality (Glaser and Strauss. 1965.1967). Given the exploratory nature of this study of the brother role in the family, the inductive method was fol- lowed for the analysis Of data. More specifically, the constant comparative method of Glaser and Strauss (1965) guided the joint collection and analysis of the data. The method involves the careful consideration of all available qualitative and quantitative evidence, and the necessity Of an intensive analysis of individual cases and comparison of certain crucial cases. The researcher using an inductive method with comparison groups possesses the capacity to maximize the credibility Of his findings and emerging sub- stantive and grounded theory (Glaser and Strauss,1976). The use of the comparative group involves the identification of both significant categories and hypotheses. This step was initiated prior to the data collection. Based on previous findings it was possible to identify various sibling con- stellation patterns which constitute "significant categor- ies." By choosing families which met these categorical criteria the maximization Of emerging theory was strength- 50 ened. As Glaser and Strauss (1965) state: The comparison maximizes credibility of the final theo- ry in two fundamental ways: 1) By precisely detailing the many similarities and differences of the various comparison groups. the analyst knows better, than if he only studied one or a few social systems. under what conditions his hypotheses are minimzed and maximized. hence to what kinds of social structures his theory is applicable; 2) Comparison groups maximize the final theory in that their use helps the researcher to calcu- late where a given order of events or incidents is most likely to occur or not occur (p.7). What this meant in the present study was that given certain sibling constellation patterns the brother role in the fami- ly may be more pronounced and/or understood, and expecta- tions of the brother role may be made more clear. The use of multiple comparison groups in Glaser and Strauss's constant comparative inductive method is similar to what in quantitative methods is termed as a stratifica- tion process in sampling method. Stratification involves the selection of individuals or groups for inclusion in the sample according to dimensions on particular variables. All persons or groups meeting the dimension criteria are grouped for comparison, and actual sampling occurs from each compar- ison group. A process of testing and retesting. formulating and reformulating of the emerging hypotheses takes place throughout the data collection period. In cases of parti- cipant Observation involving field work. this occurs in the daily field notes Of the researcher. whereby situations are tested against operating hypotheses and then the hypotheses are confirmed, negated, or reformulated. In the use of 51 repeated interviews for gathering life history material this formulation and reformulation of hypotheses takes place during the reflective periods of analyzing the interview tapes. Additionally the time lag between the first and second interview allows for some analytic space to consider operational hypotheses against interview data. The total collection and analysis Of the data is directed then towards general descriptive and analytical statements of the pheno- menon under study. Grounded research hypotheses can then be formulated and integrated into what Glaser and Strauss (1967) have called "substantive theory." What Norman Denzin (1970) stated about analytic induction holds true for other methods of induction: Because analytic induction. when employed in conjunc- tion with the triangulated methodology. rests on several distinct sources of data, the Observer is aided in the discovery of contradiction as well as confirmation of emergent research hypotheses. (p.240) As is true of any research method there are advantages and disadvantages to using an inductive method. The disad- vantages Of the method include: failure to predict, inabi- lity to deal with matters Of degree or variation, ineffi- ciency, and failure to produce causal analysis. The advan- tages include: the maximization of freedom in pursuing mul- tiple hypotheses, discarding irrelevant ones along the way and being able to reformulate hypotheses; the capacity to generate conceptual formulations and hence the basis for grounded theories; the capacity to induce revision in theo- ries especially through careful analysis of negative cases; 52 and the capacity to integrate sampling methods. Within the present study only one Of the disadvantages of an inductive method was minimized to a certain extent. Through the use of the PAQ and the ABS, quantifiable data was Obtained on each sibling providing some ability to deal with variation Of scores both within and between families. Prediction and causality clearly belong to the realm of experimental design; however, because of limitations inhe— rent to the inductive method used, these problems could not be adequately addressed. 53 CHAPTER III THE FAMILIES IDLLQQHQLIQD The present chapter presents a brief history and des- cription of each of the families interviewed. The nature of the interview data allows a presentation of demographic, relational and historical data on three generations of each family. Consideration Of this data within an ecological or ecosystemic framework assumes that the role brothers develop within the family in relationship to one another, to their sisters, and to other family members, is formed within the context of each family's ecosystem. According to a human ecological model each family, as a system, possessess its own behavioral environment within which members interact with one another. The nature Of the interactions are inter- dependent and linked to the role functions Of family mem- bers. How particular role functions develop within any given family are a result of the impact on it of numerous components within both the family's near and far environ- ment. 54 As each family's environment is described below, those factors of each family's history which impact on role deve- lopment are considered. Emphasis is placed on the structur- al attributes Of the family and the personal attributes of its members. In particular instances the importance of the natural environment on a family's interactive system is highlighted. Additionally the values and attitudes possess- ed by each family are specified. The principal values of a family appeared to coalesce into a family theme which pro- vided family members with an identifying character setting them apart from other families. For each of the families in the study a family genogram has been constructed. In most cases a representation Of five generations was possible. The names of those persons in the family interviewed are included on the genogram. All other family members are represented by sex,‘ age or age at death when known. The first and last names of all families are fictitious to assure anonymity. As much as possible places and occupations have been changed, it is hoped. without doing any injustice to the families. Each family's history and characteristics are presented followed by a detailed description of the siblings interviewed. 55 The Williams family (parents: Tom and Miriam; Children: Blaine, John and James) traced its roots on Tom's side to Germany and on Miriam's side to England. Tom's grandparents settled in Illinois where they farmed. Not much is known about them. They had five children. Tom's father being the oldest. Tom's father was an electrician serving his appren- ticeship under his future wife's father. In addition to practicing his trade he was a skilled violin maker. A love for music appears to have been a strong value for his par- ents. Tom's mother played both violin and piano, and served as an assistant conductor of a local orchestra. At the age Of 32. Tom's father died after being kicked by a horse. Widowed and with two school age children. Tom's mother moved to another town to escape friction with her in- laws. Unable to handle both children and work alone she 56 placed Tom and his younger sister in an orphanage until she remarried two years later. With her new husband and her two children she moved to Iowa. Tom's stepfather earned his living as a mold maker. He too died young when Tom was in the 10th grade. A year later his mother died leaving four children orphaned. A Boy Scout Master befriended Tom and took him into his home until he was sent to live with an uncle in Michigan. His blood sister joined him there while his half brother and sister born of the second marriage went to live with his mother's sister. Having found it hard to get along with his uncle, Tom dropped out of school and returned to Iowa where he found work and obtained private tutoring to get his high school diploma. Home life for Tom was difficult given the experience of losses and spending time in an orphanage. In Tom's develop- ing years it was his mother who was the "common denomina- tor." She worked at holding the family together as best as she could. The situation of not having a consistent father figure drew Tom and his siblings closer together. and Tom being the eldest, his siblings learned to lean on him early in life. There was not much time for the development Of a strong family unity although Tom's grandparents tried to communicate a sense of family closeness to Tom and his siblings. Tom's relationship with his siblings is marked by his family history. Five years separate each sibling. Prior to his mother's death he recalls that he had a close 57 relationship with his blood sister who was five years young- er. This changed after his mother's death when his sister came under the strong influence of the aunt with whom they lived. Disagreements over religion colored their relation- ship ever since that time. From Tom's perspective both he and his sister feel a gap in their lives and they have missed something by not being close in adult life. Tom admits that he doesn't know his siblings very well today. In adult life the only one he had time to come to know was his half-sister who lived with him and his family for a year. His youngest half-sibling, a brother is now deceased. Fifteen years separated them and this brother was plagued with health problems after a fall which left him epileptic. In spite of separations and distances, Tom said he maintains a warmth in his heart for his siblings. When younger he watched out for them. When things became unbearable for his half-sister and brother who were living with an aunt Tom arranged for better living conditions for them. Today, Tom has infrequent contact with his sisters, only calling or visiting them once a year. Miriam's family history is quite the opposite of Tom's. It is characterized by stability and regularity. Her moth- er's father moved from Pennsylvania, where he had been a captain of a Clipper ship, settling in Utah as a farmer. Her father's father was a Utah native and a farmer. After her parents married they moved to eastern Idaho where they too took up farming. It was on a farm where Miriam and her 58 two sisters were born and raised. Miriam's strongest memory is of the Depression years when the family worked hard just to survive. In fact her recollection of family life was simply hard work. After high school Miriam went to Salt Lake City, Utah, to train as a Beautician a profession She has engaged in for almost forty years. Miriam grew up as the middle of three sisters. She regards herself as a quiet and shy person by nature. Miriam didn't share much about her sisters or family life except to say that she got along very well with them. "Growing up on a farm we only had one another to play with." Her older sister died at the age of 32. She remembers her as a "real great person" who certainly was an influence in her life. After her older sister died, Miriam drew extremely close to her younger sister. Today this sister is all the family she has and they talk with each other by telephone more than once a week. Tom and Miriam met due to an odd circumstance in Tom's life which brought him from California to Idaho. Once in Idaho it was Miriam's father who helped Tom obtain a plum- bers job. Tom began dating Miriam and after they were married they moved to southern Idaho to start their own business. Tom ran the business and Miriam continued to work full time as a Beautician. Tom and Miriam have three sons: Blaine (age 34), John 59 (age 31) and James (age 28). They describe their parents in very positive terms. Dad is seen as a very strong person. an independent and realistic thinker who is honest, main- tains a right/wrong attitude, and is able to delegate au- thority. Mom is the hard worker. unselfish. a good mediator but a person who is too submissive. The brothers admire their parents for their great patience and understanding nature. "Because Dad was not authoritarian it made a dif- ference for us growing up." "They gave us a free hand and trusted us." The Williams family members who were interviewed por- tray a family history of being a very active family involved in sports and recreational activities (boating and skiing). Although the siblings indicated that they were not the "huggy type" of family they appeared to be close knit in that they included one another in each other's activities because family unity is an important value. "We know one another and know where we are." (Blaine) "...lots of love and concern, but no showing of affec- tion. The affection is there, it's kind of intangible." (James) The family theme is best summarized as "freedom with responsibility". It was expressed in various ways by each of the brothers: "Be responsible for what you do." (John) "What is right is right." (Blaine) "Freedom with responsibility." (James) 60 The family theme originated with their father, Tom. Having grown up as the Oldest of four half brothers and sisters from an unstable home situation Tom learned early to take life into _his own hands and be responsible for his own actions and for younger siblings. In discussing his paren- ting approach he said: "If you trust someone then you just expect that they will fulfill their responsibilities." Thus early on Tom "gave them (his sons) responsibility for their actions." This attitude, according to Blaine, helped him and his brothers to grow up faster and to understand rela- tionships better and quicker. An aspect of the family theme. was a comment made repeatedly by Michael - "what's right is right." This was another parental message which Michael highly values as coming from his father, and which means for him that in living responsibly you live truthfully. This living truthfully includes a loyalty to the family name. All of the brothers regard this loyalty as an "inner feel- ing", "a pride in the family image." D i II E ”.11. 3111' Blaine, the oldest, who was married for the second time, has one child. and, in addition to being in the real estate business, has recently moved into the field of compu- ters. He was certainly the pioneer and trail blazer for his brothers. He was the first to play organized baseball, to ski, and to enter Business College after high school. He described himself in very positive terms reflecting the competence and self—confidence seen in him by other family 61 members. As he saw himself Blaine was independent, re- sourceful, competitive, confident, more aggressive and li- beral than his brothers, made-decisions faster than either James or John, was more adaptable to change, and tries different things more readily. Blaine's self description was confirmed by all of his family members. His parents saw him as the child who was always very independent, a defier of convention, a risk taker, and the one who seldom confided his thoughts or feelings. Both James and John had a good regard for Blaine, especially in those attributes which have helped him to succeed in business ventures. James described Blaine as the most competent in business, very work oriented, very respon- sible, calm and collected. Blaine's competency in business seemed to) be enhanced by his abilities. One charac- teristic mentioned by his brothers and parents, however, appeared to dominate the type and quality of Blaine's rela- tionship to his brothers, i.e. that he was "not very open", "seldom confides", and was "hard to get to know." This aspect of Blaine's personality seemed to impede close and frequent interaction with his brothers and parents. Not wanting to waste words Blaine was "all business" even in his family relationships. Of the three brothers he had the least contact or involvement with his brothers and parents. John and James have frequent contact and meet for lunch or coffee several days a week. 62 John, as the middle brother, was somewhat typical of a middle child of three siblings. Following upon the heels of a strong Older brother, John "is very aggressive with a drive and determination to accomplish things."(Blaine) Middle children often strive harder to catch up to or surpass an Older sibling. Married with two young girls John works as a partner with his father in a family owned con- tracting business. He was aggressive in his work striving to develop new product areas to expand the business. Unlike Blaine, John was conservative and worried a lot. In many ways John had developed attributes quite the opposite of his older brother. He was more person oriented, being sensitive about people's feelings, and, according to his parents, the most considerate of family members. John viewed himself as caught between his own aggreSsiveness and competitiveness and "trying to be too nice with people". In his father's business where he was a partner, he was "per- sistent", "does things to get the job done", "is aggres- sive", yet worried about hurting people's feelings. He displayed his competitiveness mainly on the golf course where he was a local favorite in amateur tournaments. While Blaine mainly discussed the aggressive-competi- tive side of John. James, while recognizing John as "extremely aggressive", described him as "unselfish, consi- derate, responsible." To his parents John is "a fighter", by which they meant he has determination and drive. On obser- vation of John's interactions with his wife and children, he 63 displayed a gentle disposition. John commented that it was his wife who had helped smooth over some of his rough edges in more recent years. The youngest brother, James. does not possess the ag- gressive and competitive nature of his two older brothers. Additionally he lacks their drive and confidence. Still single James works as an supervisor for a building contrac- tor company. He described himself as: "not very aggressive. very sports minded. impatient and. not as much confidence as my brothers." According to his parents James was the "most humorous" of the brothers, he was "cautious, conservative, friendly and outgoing". Blaine emphasized the conservative nature of James, confirming the "cautious" description by his parents by saying that James was "unsure of himself and is still trying to decide what he wants in life." John attributed many of James's qualities and where he's at presently to "his being spoiled as a child, had things his way". "Frustrated with where he's at. he gets upset when things go wrong or are not in order." Any disorder or difficulty goes against James's qualities of being "organ- ized and precise". In many ways James is typical Of a youngest child who was spoiled in that he lacks the aggres- siveness of his Older brothers to go out and get what he wants, preferring to be more laid back in his life approach. As with any sibling group there are similarities and differences among these brothers. However. depending upon which brother is Speaking the specific Similarities and 64 differences vary or one is stressed as more dominant than another. All share similar educational backgrounds and a B.S. in Business Administration. They possessed a basic likeness for work, but even here they differed in approach. As John puts it - "Blaine is matter of fact, doesn't get too personal. James and I are more personable. I get too emotional at times." All are sports oriented following one another through each level of organized baseball, and they skied together. However, as James observes, John and Blaine "have more concentration and better attention spans" than he has and "they excelled more in sports because of this". This applies, however, only to baseball and football. James has the abilities to excel but not the aggressiveness to compete for excellence, especially where his brothers alrea- dy excelled. He chose to excel in skiing and as an instruc- tor, excelled far beyond both Blaine and John. Yii£l£_Eamlll E ’J H' I 1 Cl l I II The Vitale family (parents: Ted and Florence; children: Monk, Bob, Paul and Nancy) boasts a southern Italian lineage on both sides Of the family. Ted's father immigrated to the United States with his wife at the turn of this century and worked for the Union Pacific Railroad. After a few years of hard labor he saved enough money to open an Italian grocery store in southern Idaho making his store a distribution 65 “T9 AAOOAEOO AAALOO I AAAéi 3“” HI“ center for Italian products throughout the regiOn. The history of the Vitale family was centered around that store as many hours each day were spent by both parents and child- ren accomplishing the numerous tasks Of keeping a business going. Ted remembered his parents as quite generous. very Often extending help and credit to their neighbors. Family life was tight knit in an "Old style Italian tradition." The family always came first. Ted's parents were home bodies who weren't ones for "galavanting around". They kept busy with the store and their children. raising six sons and daughters, ensuring that they had opportunity for more than a high school eduCation. Growing up with his siblings Ted remembered as enjoy- able. He was the youngest of the four brothers and was closest with his next Oldest brother. They were like "two peas in a pod." Both were athletic and Ted followed his 66 brother around everywhere. Ted's oldest brother by six years was the businessman of the family who helped his father with the details of the grocery store. As Ted put it: "he was the oldest and we let him take care of such things." The brothers as a group were expected to handle the heavier work around the home and store. They did a lot of the tasks surrounding the building of the family home. Ted's sisters, both the youngest, kept to themselves and moved away from home for college and business opportunities. After completing his college education at the age of twenty-two. Ted returned to his home town and opened an art studio in 1938. He still operates this studio himself. and it is in the same building as it was in 1938. A few years after he opened his business he met and married Florence. Ted socialized with some of her brothers and met her at her home, and as he put it - "took a liking to her". They were married in 1943, and had five children. Florence's family also came from Italy. Her father came to to the United States in 1902 at 17 years Of age settling in Salt Lake City, Utah, where a cousin lived. He worked at odd jobs for ten years before returning to Italy where he married in 1913. He returned to the 0.8. in order to avoid being drafted into the Army leaving behind a preg- nant wife. Returning to Utah he found a job in the copper mines. After six years he returned to Italy to get his wife and child, and settled in southern Idaho to work for the railroad. Florence's parents had five children, she being 67 the only girl and the 4th of five. Florence's father also built and operated a grocery store. He became quite suc- cessful building an apartment complex. and after WWII built another store for two of his sons, and a barber shop for another son. When one Of his two brothers came to the United States her father built him a barber shop so he could make a living for his family. Florence remembered growing up in her family as joyful. The family worked hard but also took adequate time. for recreation. Sundays were play days for family gatherings and outings, a tradition Florence carried over to her own family of procreation. Florence described her father as a family man, honest and generous. and above all hard working. Her mother was the shy type who kept to home and family. She ’was hard working and valued cleanliness "to a fault." Of all her brothers Florence gets along best and feels closest to the Oldest. She admires his intelligence. his philosophy of life, and looks forward to their conversations and "arguments." She got along "tremendously" with all Of her brothers enjoying the play time they had together. Her younger brother, for some reason. became the Black sheep of the family and he maintains a certain distance. Florence keeps good contact with her siblings seeing three of them at least once a month and talking to all of them by telephone at least once a week. This is made easier by the fact that all of them live in the same town. The Vitale children, Monk (age 38). Bob (age 35). Paul 68 (age 30) and Nancy (age 25), spoke well of their parents. They said their parents encouraged independence and the need for hard work in order to make it in life. Each of the siblings admired their father for his ability to work hard in his business making it successful and respected in town According to his children Ted was easy to get along with. thrifty, has a good business head and exercises good judg- ments. He's a bit distant at times and not one for showing his emotions or expressing affection. They described their mother (Florence) as being shy and a home body by nature. She was "over protective" of her children and considered it her responsibility to instill high moral values in them. The Vitale siblings described their family in close knit and helpful terms. As many Italian families do the Vitale's put a large emphasis on family loyalty and assis-' tance to one another. "We'd do anything for one another and never refuse a call for help. There's a lot of offering of help but just as much declining Of assistance. I guess we're too proud."(Bob) This last part of Bob's statement points up the independent character of the family. As Paul put it when discussing his parents: "they made us more aware of things. They made us independent, able to get along on our own if needed." The "if needed" was important to stress because the frequency of interaction among the Vitale siblings speaks more of dependency and reliance upon one another than of an isolationist independence. The brothers described their family as "typically 69 Italian" with "dad ruling the house." In their opinion it is their Italian heritage which holds them together because "blood is thicker than water." Doing things together is very important: fishing, hunting, summer trips to national parks, and extended family picnics. Even though emotional closeness was spoken of by all of the siblings, they said there was little, if any, Open display of their affection. Displays of affection by their parents were never observed. "We didn't show our closeness; we know we are close. It was an unwritten rule; too much pride to say you felt close." (Nancy) "We don't show affection, but we're close. We rely upon nonverbal vibes." (Bob) "We're not affectionate, no hugging; never shook hands with my brothers in my life or hugged them. never would, not natural for us; never even kiss my mother. Our appreciation is just understood." (Paul) All the siblings see that it was their father's attitude that brought about their feeling of closeness because, for him, his wife and children came first before his brothers and sisters. An identifying trademark Of the Vitale family is their involvement in art. Both Bob and Paul have taken up paint- ing from their father. Bob was particularly gifted in this field and has had his work locally exhibited and nationally reproduced in various magazines. A strong family theme that emerged from the interviews with the two younger brothers and with their parents was the high regard the family has of itself. It was expressed in 70 the following statements: "We're a notch above other people. We strive to do our best and be the best - a cut above anyonelse." (Bob) "Always just a little bit ahead. We're kind of special from everyonelse - everything goes good for us." (Paul) There is a steady and honest encouragement among the sib- lings to do well and to continue to meet challenges. There is a strong expectation that each will be the best at what he or she intends to do. Much of this attitude stems from family and ethnic pride within a cultural situation where if one is not part Of the dominant culture it is hard to get ahead. Wm Monk was the Oldest of the Vitale brothers. He was‘ married now for the second time and has three children (ages 6,2 and 1), all from the second marriage, and works as a railroad construction engineer. His siblings regarded Monk generally as the "loner," the independent older brother who has gone his own way. He was a man "obsessed" with hunting and fishing, and although a good family man, fishing comes first. Bob looked upon his relationship with Monk as being worlds apart though only three years of age separate them. Paul, who was eight years younger saw his oldest brother as extremely intelligent, independent, an organizer, and a very active outdoorsman. Having always looked up to Monk, Paul found it hard to find any faults about his broth- er. A thirteen year difference separated Nancy from Monk 71 and she knows him the least of her brothers - "he was more of a father image." Monk was the most like his father - set in his ways, holds an argument longer. can be ornery and not as easy going as her other brothers. Bob was the only brother to spend anytime away from the home town when he entered the seminary for a few years during high school. He has been married for 15 years with no children. He saw himself as the introvert Of the family, possessing artistic talent. His home was filled with award winning paintings framed by himself with self-made frames from old wood. Although his talent has won him recognition and he holds' a responsible job in the medical field he felt he was wasting his life. Although Monk regards Bob as an intellectual with great talents in photography, he saw his brother as being opinionated and narrow-minded showing no interest in child- ren. Bob, not having any children, irritates Monk, who has three, as something of a disloyalty to familial expecta- tions. It was interesting how both brothers criticize the other relative to family lifestyle, reflecting different aspects Of the value of family life. Bob was Paul's closest friend, the jack-Of—all-trades, the "con man" who gets along well with people. Proud Of his brother, Paul looked up to him as being "real smart," "a person who knows what he's talking about," and worthy of imitation. Nancy did not feel very close with Bob and described him as easy going but set in his ways. 72 Paul was the youngest brother. He has been married for eight years and has two children (ages 5 and 3). He des- cribed himself as the "mediator" of the family - "I was always in between my brothers." He judges that he has a unique gift of being able to calm people down. This he not only did with his brothers but also with his parents. Monk seemed to have a high regard for Paul seeing him as ambi- tious, enthusiastic, aggressive, always on the go, and or- ganized. This last attribute Paul says he learned from Monk. According to Monk, Paul was a true sportsman who en- joys every aspect Of hunting and fishing. His only regret about him was that "he's a confirmed materialist. always thinking about money." Paul was Bob's "other self" and he felt very close to him. Nancy described Paul as easy going. a generous man, being very understanding. Bob and Paul were quite similar to one another. They have common interests in fishing and art, and because they think alike have a fundamental cama- raderie which links them together. Both Bob and Paul recog- nized that there were major differences between Bob and Monk. As Bob puts it: "Monk and I are worlds apart." This wasn't always the case, however, During their teen years Monk and Bob were closer being drawn together by their mutual interest in cars. Now in adult life Monk and Bob have put their life emphases in different directions and, according to Paul, have a combination of jealousy and com- petition between them which interfers with any feelings of 73 closeness. There are things about each other which are irritating and color their fraternal relationship, e.g. Bob's opinionated disposition and liking of quality goods. his lack Of interest in children, Monk's priority of fishing over family life, and lack of creative talents. As Monk pointed out, Bob and he "have practically no interactions except when we are thrown together. We both go our own ways." Paul still lived in admiration of his oldest brother (Monk) and has followed him in his interest in hunting and fishing. There was no trace in their description of their relationship of the antagonisms which exist between Monk and Bob. Monk and Paul get along well and know a bonding through their common interest in outdoor life. Nancy, the youngest sibling, was married with no child- ren. She described herself as: easy to get along with, a person who jumps to conclusions, and a person who argues easily but as easily gets over it. She was shy in talking with her brothers never engaging in any heart to heart talks with them. Her brothers saw her as: jovial, artistic, patient, a good homemaker. easy going, idealistic, intelli- gent and quick witted. Other than describing her the Vitale brothers spoke very little of their sister each one recogni- zing that she was not very much a part of their lives. They regarded her highly but do not interact with her very much. Similarities among the Vitale brothers did exist. There was first of all a tenacious loyalty to the family and 74 parents. None have sought friends outside their social class and content themselves with friends who are blue collar, middle class. the type who are not party goers and who are more conservative in their approach to life. As Nancy noted - "We think alike but we'd never let the other know it. We end up arguing for the sake of arguing." Wm The Stevens family (parents: Tom and Betty; children: Helen, Todd, Al and Dennis) traced its origins on Tom's side to both a Greek and a Dutch-Welch background. Betty's parents were born in the midwest with origins in Italy and England. At the age of fourteen Tom's father, the youngest of four children, emigrated from Greece to the United States. He settled in Utah where he washed dishes and later 75 worked as a water boy for a railroad section gang. By the age of twenty he moved into Idaho where he bought a farm and established a sheepherding business with a brother and a cousin. Tom's mother was born in the midwest after her family moved from Virginia during the Civil War. Her family were sharecroppers farming in Illinois and Colorado before finally homesteading in Idaho. Tom's father and mother met in the local Post Office which was managed by Tom's mother's family. Tom was a middle child (4th Oldest) of six brothers and sisters. He describes his family of origin as very close. His father never stressed Greek traditions. They grew up poor on the forty acre farm his father purchased at the time of marriage. Thriftiness and hardwork characterized the family. Childhood centered around schooling and farm chores. During the Depression Tom's father lost his sheep herd and supported the family.seeking out Odd jobs either at the pea factory, potato mill, or railroad yards shoveling coal. Often he was gone weeks at a time. As a youth Tom remembers working for an uncle shucking grain and putting up hay for .25 for ten hours Of work. . Tom's mother highly valued education and strongly en- couraged her children to develop their minds. His father, however, wanted his three sons to go into the sheep business which he rebuilt after the Depression years. After return- ing from the war (WWII) Tom and his next oldest brother decided to continue their schooling, a decision which 76 disappointed their father. The two of them entered medical school and are now successful doctors in two different Idaho communities. Tom's youngest brother became an Vetinarian after completing a Masters in Chemistry. Tom said he enjoyed a fine relationship with his sib- lings especially with his brothers with whom he has shared a lot in common. They see one another several times a year including ski vacations. As a child there was a lot of competition with his oldest brother as to whom was the fastest runner or best boxer. Boxing was a sport Tom took up in high school because he didn't want his Oldest brother, also into boxing, to use him as a punching bag. When it came to choosing professional careers it was Tom who convin- ced his oldest brother to pursue medicine instead of be- coming a veterinarian. Betty's background and upbringing does not reflect the same stable quality of family life as Tom's does. Her parents were both born, raised and married in Nebraska. Prior to WWII her father was in business for himself selling meat to retail stores. When Betty was eight years old the family moved to Iowa where her father continued in the same occupation. At the outbreak of the war her father went bankrupt on a bad business deal and he moved to southern Idaho with Betty's Older sister and brother to look for work near the Air Force base which promised employment opportuni- ties. Betty's mother had a brother in Idaho who provided a family contact for job hunting. Betty, her mother and two 77 younger sisters remained in Iowa until they too eventually moved to Idaho in 1943 to be near family. Her father and brother at this time moved on to the Portland shipyards looking for better work. Shortly after this the divorce papers arrived by mail and the family was split. Betty's mother supported herself and the three younger children by renting rooms to Air Force wives. Despite the moves and separations of her childhood years, Betty has fond memories of her early years with her siblings. The five of them got along well, were together a lot, enjoyed many friends, and their home was a center of fun gatherings especially their "Thursday night jamborees." Although several states separate them from one another now they do manage to see one another at least once a year. It has been the trips to Betty's siblings' homes which her children remember the most. As with most sibling constella- tions, Betty enjoyed her closest relationship with her youngest sister who was closest in age. She found it hard to relate to her immediate older sister because of her more serious and sullen nature. After graduating from high school Betty went to work for a public accountant. Tom was at the university completing his medical education and boxing on the school team. Betty and Tom met socially and began dating. They married in 1950. Tom set up his medical practice with the help of Betty who handled the accounts. Four children were 78 born close together: Helen (age 29). Todd (age 27), Al (age 25) and Dennis (age 23). The siblings hold their parents in high regard, valuing the upbringing they received within the context of a warm and loving family. Tom and Betty were regarded as being very fair as parents and dependable, and taught these values to their children. Both were very sports-minded. Tom was the disciplinarian and Betty was the worrier. The siblings described their family as being very close while allowing each member space and indepen- dence. Each sibling has gone his or her own way relative to- career and work. Their independence was within a close network of interactions with oneanother which has the quali- ty of a healthy reliance upon one another. _Dependability and honesty were values which were very much stressed within the Stevens family. Growing up, accor- ding to Dennis, was done with "a lot Of humor", and "we learned how to care for one another." Like the Williams family freedom was also a strong value stressed among the Stevens family members. This freedom was expressed in each sibing knowing that he or she could pursue their own inter- est and be themselves. The family theme can best be stated as: the family that plays together stays together. Sports (basketball) and outdoor activities (golf and skiing) characterized this family's way of staying in touch with one another. All of the siblings, along with their father, golf and ski. Many weekends during the skiing season (December thru May) were 79 spent skiing, and each season included a major week-long trip to a ski resort. Sports activities were a part of the Stevens brothers life from early childhood. Even before organized baseball and basketball their back yard was the neighborhood focal point for all types of games. Presently Todd and Dennis play basketball with guys with whom they played as children. In addition to playing together the Stevens family also maintained their unity by praying together and by attending church together each Sunday. Church was followed by dinner at their parents' home. Since all but A1 live in the same city this activity was easy to achieve. The Stevens family theme was more inferred than expli- citly verbalized. Unlike the Williams family the Stevens family members, with the exception of Al, were more shy and quieter, and not as strongly descriptive of their attitudes and values. WWW Helen (age 29) was the Oldest Marheras sibling. She was now married for the second time (although at time of the interview she was divorced) and worked at a local bank. She described herself as shy, intelligent, talented and sports minded. Her brothers regarded her as sensitive. emotional at times. affectionate and a person with a good temper. Her brothers said she was not much of an influence in their lives. Her shyness and athletic abilities were qualities 80 she shared with Todd and Dennis. Todd was the eldest of the brothers and the second child of the family. He was single, holds a 8.8 in Business and worked as a field auditor for a major insurance company. The first characteristic he used to describe himself and the first used by all other family members was that he was shy. In addition, Todd saw himself as "noncompetitive, practical, not a party-goer, athletic, romantic, and as a person with lots of common sense". Dennis who shared a house with Todd described his brother as "quiet, sensitive about things, easy going and above all dependable." Al added that Todd "worries a lot, incredibly like my mother, laid back. not very excitable, was comfortable talking with people and cruises through life." His sister and parents did not see Todd much differently. Helen added that he was "creative and well rounded" while his parents saw him as "an arbitra- tor," a role he fulfilled within the family. Al, the middle brother, was the exact opposite Of both Todd and Dennis. He was "outgoing, flamboyant, a sociali- zer, who enjoyed meeting people and going places". As a child he was "very confident and cocky, and very pushy with (his) ideas." He was a young man who enjoyed a challenge. After three and one half years of college, Al embarked upon a career in acting. He trained for three years school before being accepted into an acting company. His career as an actor was in response to a challenge by a teacher - "you'll never be any good as an actor." Todd, the OldESt 81 brother described Al as the "competitor, an optimist, outgo- ing, the best at everything." He's the one sibling who "meets people easily and was competetive." Both Dennis and Helen recognized Al as being the best athlete of them all. The parental view was not unlike that of the siblings. They described him as "on the go," "in motion." "the get-goer who makes things happen," "a person who needs to be best in everything." At the same time he was "terribly sensitive." Al was that middle child who chose to be markedly different from his shy Older sister and brother. He stood out in the family as odd-man-out. He was the only one to leave the home town to seek adventures. an achievement everyone else shared in vicariously wishing they could be more like Al. All the while the stability of everyone else provided Al with a secure point of reference from his other- wise nomadic life style. It was only by chance that Al was available to be interviewed. ‘ He had just quit the acting company and came home for a few weeks to visit and sort out his plans for the future which included further education. The youngest brother, Dennis, was very much like his sister and oldest brother in that he was quiet, quite bright and did not meet people easily. Yet in listening to each member describe Dennis there was a marked difference about his quietness from that of Helen and Todd. There was the quality of being a person who thought deeply, "says what's up and quits." Al admired Dennis because "he's content, mellow, confident and things don't bother him." Although 82 the youngest Dennis took a lot of initiative for family activities, planning trips or dinners. However, this was not always the case. As children it was Al who had this role and Dennis assumed it after Al moved away. Although extremely bright academically Dennis chose not to finish college. completing only two years. and has settled into a secure employment with the library. It was a job which fit in well with his personality giving him much time alone to think and plenty of free time apart from work to pursue his hobbies foremost among these was reading about the American Civil War. Although all the Stevens brothers were quite athletic. everyone in the family recognized the superiority of Al. He always surpassed Todd, and Dennis was no match for him. Dennis and Todd were the closest sharing like temperments and the same household. As children they shared the same bedroom after Todd and Al were split up because they con- tinually ran into conflicts about likes and dislikes. Todd and Dennis saw Al as quite different from themselves in that he was the "competitor, the outgoing one...more physical, aggressive and assertive. As Al put it "I always had to win...it was always Todd and Dennis against me." Following his Older brother through school was diffi- cult for Al because of their differences - "following Todd was hard because he was quiet and well behaved. I was louder and pulled tricks and gags." Despite the Obvious differences among these brothers, differences which caused 83 many a childhood conflict, they have warm, close feelings for one another in adult life. Each regarded his childhood experience as a growing stage through which he passed suc- cessfully. Each admitted it had been his parents' attitude toward each child's individuality which helped keep them together. W MW "LATER, J _ - TATAR The Tomourien family (parents: Lucinda and Dane(D); children: Jim, Joan. Ivan, Doug, Toni and Ralph (D) ) has both Greek and Danish ancestry. The dominant ancestry has been the Greek. Dane, now deceased. was the first Greek male born in the state of Idaho. Both of his parents had 84 come to Idaho directly from Greece. . Once there they opened a grocery store. Dane's father would peddle bread and fruit on the streets. In addition he would work herding sheep, eventually purchasing his own herd in a partnership with his brothers. It was a mixed lifestyle for the family; opera- ting a city business and spending days out in the hills during the grazing season with the sheep herds. The sheep- herding business grew much faster and was more financially rewarding for the family than the grocery store. It was definitely of ethnic origins and was passed on to Dane and his brothers. The business was kept intact until shortly after Dane's death in 1970. Lucinda's family was Danish. Her parents were both born in Idaho of Danish parents who settled here directly from' Denmark. Lucinda's father was the second youngest of six children and her mother was the youngest of twelve. The family were farmers. Lucinda's parents continued the farming tradition and farmed in southeastern Idaho for sixty years before selling the farm recently. Lucinda and her only brother grew up on that farm until she left to attend nur- sing school in Pocatello. Her brother remained on the farm after their father's death to work and look after their mother. Lucinda described her family of origin as plain farm people, hard working, who enjoyed the simple pleasures of life. Some of Lucinda's childhood experiences which she felt she has indelibly printed on her brain were the fre- 85 quent contacts with the migrant workers who were so neces- sary for crop production. and the bus to school which would be a large horse drawn sleigh in the winter. Her brother was three years Older and he was her principal playmate for many years. She said that he always gave her a real sense of security especially after her father's death. While in nursing school Lucinda was introduced to Dane by one of her classmates who was his cousin. Dane was much older than Lucinda. She was 21 and he was 37. They dated a few times and according to Greek custom this meant that Dane intended to marry her. This custom was something of which Lucinda knew nothing about. She found she couldn't get rid Of him, so "I married him." Lucinda remembered him as a very patient, easy going, hard working man who was tolerant of persons. He was a good man who loved his family. They had six children who were born very close to one another. The youngest, although retarded, became a teacher to the others of what it is to be human and compassionate. The siblings possessed great admiration for their par- ents. Their father was remembered for his ability to work hard and stay young looking. He was an easy going, happy man with a strong personality, a man who enjoyed life. Although he let you know who was the "boss" in the family. he was always fair and kind to his children. Lucinda was the anchor of the family, always there, generous with her love, and ever ready to help anyone in need. Her protec- tiveness and level headed approach to life are valued highly 86 by her children. All of the siblings described their family as very close knit. However, their individual perspectives on this closeness vary. Joan, who was sOmething of the family philosopher, saw their closeness as a certain "enmeshment which struggles to allow each sibling to go their own way."(Joan) Toni liked the close bondedness among her brothers and sister but saw it interfering at times with her life. The family's expectations and watchfulness of its 'little sister' ,made her self-conscious of what she was doing with her life. In discussing closeness Jim echoed his mother's injunc- tion: "If you don't hang together, you'll hang separately." Ivan too referenced his mother when he said that it was her upbringing that kept the family together and close. She had a strong family farm background with a strong religious tradition. Although close, the family was not emotionally outward in its expressions. What seems more important was that they are able to do things for one another readily; each person can be counted upon. All of the siblings valued the solid family foundation they received, and were grateful that their parents who were so different from one another got along so well. Joan regarded the family atmosphere she grew up in as quite positive and tried to recreate it for her own children. The respectful and noninterfering attitude towards one another helped Joan regard her family as a "safe place" where she 87 got a "lot of emotional support but not necessarily from personal contact." It was important for her to just know that her brothers are there. Although of Greek ancestry the Tomourien siblings did not carry on, as a family, any Greek family traditions. As Jim emphasized. the only tradition they had was work. To- day, however, both Jim and Toni express some strong feelings about being Greek and try to discover something of their heritage and incorporate various elements into their own families of procreation. WW Jim, the oldest brother(age 34).- was by self descrip- tion, and regarded as such by his siblings, as the "surro- gate father" of the family. Jim has been married for seven years and has one child, a 4 month old daughter. After his father's death he assumed a role of being the 'responsible one' for the family, a role not untypical of an Oldest brother. He saw himself as being too responsible, a worrier about money and outsiders' opinions Of the family. His younger siblings shared a fairly consistent view of Jim. He was outgoing. persistent, ambitious, a worrier, serious about life, goal oriented, politically oriented, concerned with the family image and, above all, has a strong sense of responsibility. According to Joan "of all of us he has the strongest sense of our Greek identity." However this resul- ted more from the influence of his wife than his family upbringing. Although Jim held a B.S. degree in physical 88 therapy, he was at the time of the interviews working as truck driver because it paid better money. Since the inter- views he was successful in being elected to a political office within the county. Joan(age 33). the second oldest, was married with three sons (ages 13. 9 and 7). At the time Of the study she was a student pursuing a B.A. degree. She was the family socializer, enjoying people and school. Some- what introspective Joan enjoyed dealing in abstract con- cepts. She described herself as a risk taker and tenacious about things or ideas she valued highly. Her brothers viewed Joan as a follower, a person who liked to be accepted socially, one who enjoyed life and learning. Ivan (age 31). the only sibling to live apart from the family homstead at present, was unanimously regarded as the most intelligent member of the family. He has been married for 12 years and has two children (ages 11 and 7). He was described as a hard worker possessing exceptional skills as a bricklayer specializing in interior work. He and Joan agreed that he was not living up to his potential because he never finished college. He was conservative like his father, and has a stubborn streak in him; "right is right and wrong is wrong." Ivan was the family member with the bigger world view in mind guiding his life. He payed attention to poli- tics and community affairs, something he shared in common with Jim. Although serious he has a good sense of humor. "He is tolerant Of self and others ... and possesses the ability to accept people for who they are."(Joan) Toni has 89 a tough time getting to know Ivan because she saw him as being "inward" and "doesn't show his feelings." Doug, the youngest brother (age 30), was variously perceived by his siblings and mother. He was the "storytel- ler (fibber)", the "bragger" according to his mother and Jim. All regarded him as well liked, popular, a real giving type Of person who was helpful to both family and non-family members. He was the brother, who "takes in lost souls (Toni). or as Joan saw it "is taken advantage of and used by people." Doug was a lover of horses, a naturalist, valued the sheepherders life style, an outdoor person and as he said: "I should have been born one hundred years ago." For Toni. Doug was a very protective brother with whom she can talk intimately and who will cry with her. Both Ivan and Joan agreed that Doug was not living up to his potential and had "stopped before he's begun life."(Joan) For the last six years he has been self-employed working as a carpenter. Of all her brothers Joan regarded Doug as the "gentlest and kindest. he's the helpful one of the bunch. and is easily hurt." Doug grew up being his father's favorite mainly because Of his liking for the outdoor life and love for animals. He was the one most eager to go into the hills with his father to check on the sheep and spend days out with the Basque sheepherders. Doug tended to be more liber- al in his lifestyle than were Jim and Ivan, enjoying parties and a more free and easy lifestyle. A factor presently influencing this difference was that Doug was still single. 90 While Jim was very involved with projecting a family image within the community and was politically involved. Ivan and Doug put their energies into work and enjoying life. They were not nearly as serious as was Jim. Toni (age 26). presently the youngest living sibling, has been married a short time and has one child,a daughter. age 1 year. She described herself as basically a happy person who enjoyed good rapport with the elderly. She was sensitive to the natural things of life admiring the Ameri- can Indian culture. After high school she spent a year living and working on an Indian reservation in Arizona. Her sister and brothers have a watchful love over Toni. She was the little sister that Jim worried about. Her siblings regarded Toni as practical. possessing a logical mind, good financial skills, and according to Ivan, has the most brains in the family. Although she was regarded as quite bright her siblings also saw her as presently confused about what to do with her life. According to Joan she tended to have a selfish streak about her: "she was the favored one who was privileged to have a Fairy attend her birth."(Joan) Mention needs to be made of the youngest brother. Ralph, who died at the age of 24, a year prior to the interviews. Ralph was retarded from birth and was "quite special" to his brothers and sisters. According to Toni, Ralph "brought a lot Of understanding. patience and toler- ance to the family.“ It was good to have him." He was Toni's "favorite brother who was special" to her. Ralph 91 seems to have influenced some of his other siblings as well. Jim pursued a degree in physical therapy and taught handi- capped children for awhile. Doug was grateful to Ralph for making him sensitive to the needs of the handicapped. The Tomourien brothers shared one thing in common - a love for the family land. In this they were similar yet different. Jim and Ivan want to make the land profitable through business investments, and Doug. being the natural- ist, simply wants to enjoy the land which he travels on horseback frequently. All of the brothers shared a strong attachment to their mother. Ivan saw her as the center of the family. With a strong family centered upbringing all three brothers shared a value in having good families of their own. Doug. although single, was engaged to be married in the near future. WW Washes The Richmond family (parents: Joe and Charlene; child- ren: Carol, Dawn and Joel) was of Swedish, Norwegian and Irish ancestry. Joe's father was born in Massachusetts Of a Swedish father and Norwegian mother. His grandfather was a shoemaker. In 1900 Joe's father moved west settling in Idaho where he took on the life of a cowboy working on various ranches herding cattle. Heavy drinking, especially on week- ends, was part of the cowboy culture Of the time and Joe's 92 l-i A—l-(Z) ¢"r"‘;.’f’ (5% AM I ‘ a | cm. " It"! father continued in that behavior for the rest of his life. He didn't remain a cowboy all his life. By the time he was thirty he was working as a supervisor for the highway de- partment and retired in later years from the Forest Service. Joe's mother was an Idaho native who, after her marriage. worked twenty-nine years for the telephone company as an Operator on the night shift. Her parents were both of Irish ancestry who were born in Kansas and moved to Idaho. Her father earned his livelihood both as a newspaper publisher and as a candymaker. Joe recalled that his family was close but conflictual. Growing up on a small farm in Idaho with his two Older brothers he remembered that there were always plenty of chores to be done, chores which he and his Oldest brother hated. This dislike put him and his brother in continual conflict with their father. His father's drinking and angry 93 outbursts interfered a lot with family life. It was his mother who kept the family together, adding an easy going quality to the family's circumstances. Joe was never really close with his Oldest brother who. after he joined the Army in 1941, almost completely separa- ted himself from the family. Joe has only seen him six times in the last thirty years. Things were just the oppo- site with his next oldest brother. The two of them are very much alike and have always been close. Only 16 months apart they went through school together, hung with the same crowd and worked on the same construction jobs during col- lege years. In the 7th grade Joe took up boxing which helped his brother also because Joe would fight all his fights for him. Later Joe was able to earn extra money in the Navy by boxing. Charlene came from a small family which had its origins in Sweden and Holland. Her mother's parents were both born in Sweden and emigrated to the U.S. settling in Denver, Colorado where her grandfather, an only child, worked as a coal miner and died at a young age. Her grandmother had three brothers. two of whom died young and the third had no children. Her father's parents were born in Pennsylvania moving later to California. Charlene's mother was born in Denver and her father in California. They met and married in Denver. Her father worked for a grain company and when Charlene was a child he was transferred to a plant in Idaho. While Joe was the 94 youngest of three brothers, Charlene was the youngest of three sisters in her family. Family life for Charlene was very orderly. Her parents enjoyed a lot of activities together (bridge and fishing being their favorites). Family picnics were big events to which friends were always in- vited. Separated by nine and seven years respectively from her two older sisters. Charlene did not have many memories of her childhood years with them. It was not until all three were married that they drew close to one. another. They enjoyed mutual visits twice a year. Charlene enjoyed a close rapport with her next oldest sister. This rapport was further fostered by the close feelings both she and Joe have for this sister's husband. Both Charlene and Joe considered him "to be like a brother" to them. After college Joe went to work for the telephone compa- ny, following in his mother's footsteps. Charlene entered nursing school. While at a dance with one of Joe's friends she was introduced to Joe. A year later they were married. Charlene quit nurses training to begin a family. In close succession three children were born: Carol (age 29). Dawn (age 27) and Joel (age 25). All three children were born in Idaho. Continual transfers for Joe with the telephone com- pany moved the family around the state until they finally settled more permanently in southern Idaho. The siblings, who highly respected their parents for the upbringing they received, described them in very favor- able terms. Joe was viewed by them first of all as a hard 95 worker who modeled the importance Of honest work for them. In addition to his work Joe was quite creative exercising his creativity in cooking, sewing, flower arranging and gardening. As a hobby he has reconditioned a Model-T Ford. a hobby he shared with his brother-in-law. Charlene was the family socializer and switchboard. She organized the family gatherings. The siblings especially respected her for the care she has bestowed upon them over the years. The Richmonds highly valued real family closeness. It was a legacy handed down from grandparents. "The family comes first; should be close, fun loving and stick togeth- er."(Dawn) Today the Richmond siblings warmly- remembered the important contribution their grandmothers have made and still make in their lives. From them they have inherited a number of family traditions which are a hallmark of the Richmond family. The Swedish heritage was the stronger in the family because holidays were generally spent near their maternal grandmother. The tradition of homemade Swedish Korb at Christmas, cookie and candy making, and'candle light service at Church mark the family's Christmas traditions. The family Christmas tree was another tradition. It was always personally cut down with the family traveling even to neighboring states to secure a different type of tree. This traditional pre-Christmas outing had its origins in their father's family history to the days when Joe's father would bring home Civilian Conservation Corp (CCC) workers for Christmas. For many years after these men would send Joe's 96 family a Christmas tree from wherever they were living. In addition to Christmas, birthday celebrations were another family tradition and Charlene still makes the birthday cakes. The Richmond family closeness and ties seem to be built around these traditions, and, from all indications, it was a real intergenerational closeness. At Carol's most recent birthday party, during her lunch break from work, four generations of the family joined to celebrate another year and present to Carol the gift of the family heritage piano. Closeness was fostered by family events, outings. vacation trips to visit relatives, and travel together. Getting along, no matter what the difficulties, was very important. "My folks taught us to get along together, working as as a family. Mom and Dad are the factor in teaching us to get along, appreciating what we do for one another and respecting one another." (Joel) "We've a real neat family, a lot of togetherness. People are really impressed by all the things we do together - movies, picnics, bowling, golf and dinners." (Carol) The family's present closeness, particularly among the sib- lings has had its ups and downs. During their adolescent years Carol and Dawn were in continual conflict but Dawn's divorce rallied the siblings around her, and strengthened her relationship with her parents. Both Joel and Carol were very supportive of Dawn and her daughter making room for them in their lives and activities. It was an example of a family using a crisis to its growth advantage. Today Dawn 97 was happily remarried and closer than ever with her sister and family. The Richmond family theme was neatly summed up by the eldest sibling: "Nothing on a silver platter." The value of working together and playing together built up this family's strengths. Each of the siblings has learned to work for what they Obtain, and they grew up appreciating what can be accomplished by working with one another to achieve a desired goal. WW Carol, the oldest sibling, described herself as a "hard worker, a worrier" who was "emotional". She was, according to her sister and brother, the "career woman, intelligent, organized, dependable and always wants things better for others." For Dawn, in particular, she was the "second Mom." and Joel affectionately called her the "bookworm." It was Carol to whom both Dawn and Joel went to for financial advice in handling their family budgets. Dawn was the "problem child" in the family when she was a teenager. She was "outgoing, adventuresome, a daredevil. a whirlwind" who liked a good time. Although very gregar- ious she was not a person to "show her emotions" or "talk about her feelings." Joel saw her as "competitive, athletic and very enjoyable to be with." She was very much like Joel in that she liked hunting and waterskiing, and was more competitive. Joel Richmond, as youngest child and only brother, grew 98 up with two admiring older sisters. Listening to Carol and Dawn describe and talk about Joel was something like listen- ing to the praises Of a hero. For Carol, Joel was, on the one hand her "little brother". and yet was "like a big brother" to her. She admired him for being such a hard worker (a plumber for the city Water Department) and a family man. His performance as a father has surprised and satisfied both her and Dawn. They had never imagined that their "little brother" who was always "Joe Jock" could be such a nurturing and caring father. Within the family Joel was the "humorist," the "come- dian" who enjoyed making people laugh, a characteristic he was said to have inherited from an uncle. He was outgoing, got along well with almost anyone, was ambitious, hard working, cared about people, was sports minded, and accord- ing to Dawn, was the "spitting image of Dad." He was not without his "faults," however, in that Joel was the nervous type and worried too much. Like Carol. Joel was a hard worker, meticulous about his home, had a good self-image, was dependable and good hearted with people. He shared his liking for outdoor activities and sports, his competitive- ness and outgoing nature with his sister, Dawn. Dawn and Joel have always been close as childhood playmates, adole- scent confidants and adult friends. It was usually Dawn and Joel against Carol who was viewed by them as that Older Sister held up for imitation by their parents. Carol, during childhood and adolescence, was seen as "Miss Perfect" 99 who got the A's in school, was well behaved and always dependable. As oldest she definitely had the role of being the "responsible one," the "little mother." Dawn and Joel countered Carol's good manners by being more physical, ad- venturesome, getting into trouble and choosing non-academic paths of achievement - Joel in sports ,"Joe Jock," and Dawn in being the "trouble maker." Wiles. The families interviewed and described above were cer- tainly each unique in their background, history and charac- teristics. The siblings interviewed communicated an aware- ness and pride concerning their family of origin, each valuing what has been passed on to them by their parents. Relationships among the siblings were generally positive and Obly 'in one instance was there a conflictual relationship which has proven to be troublesome. Among the families there are both similarities and identifiable differences. In bringing this chapter to a close it is helpful to this point to delineate those similarities and differences which can be gathered from the data and which are judged most important. All five families possessed a strong work ethic which the generation of Siblings interviewed had adopted. Working for what one was able to obtain in life was valued. A background Of farming and ranching (sheepherding) was pre- sent in four of the five families. Although there has been little, if any, continuity with this background it has been formative, contributing to a more rural life style among 100 these families. In the area of work the grandparent and parent generations were characterized by self-made men and women - persons who had a pioneering attitude, building their own businesses (grocery, sheepherding, contracting, art and medicine). The sibling generation, products of a more affluent time, did not possess that same type of pio- neering spirit which was linked with mere survival. The younger generation interviewed seemed generally to be more content to secure and hold a job. Closeness and family unity were also values held in common by the families interviewed. It was usually the first descriptor used by parents and siblings in defining their families. Closeness was variously viewed but came down to an intangible quality(1) which bonded family members to- gether, motivating them to visit, share experiences togeth- er, Offer support, and maintain frequent contact. While close family relationships characterized the relations be- tween the two generations interviewed, closeness was not a quality of family life enjoyed universally by the parent generation within their families of origin. Although a real closeness was spoken of within each of the families, demonstrations of physical affection (hugs. handshakes, kisses) was a behavior described as lacking in 1Esther Harding refers to such an "intangible quality" as "participation mystique". the unconscious part of the bond which family members realize with one another. For a full consideration of this concept the reader is referred to Harding's work. The I and the Not I". 1965. in particular Ch.3. pp.51-54. . 101 all of the families. The brothers interviewed were explicit in saying that such signs of affection were lacking. In all five families there were strong and authorita- tive parent figures. The parents of the siblings inter- viewed were regarded highly for being fair in discipline, consistent in rules, allowing freedom with responsibility, encouraging independence in career and educational choices, being nurturant and being committed to the development of healthy relationships among family members. Role modeling by the parents was typically stereotyped in four of the five families with the father wOrking and the mother at home providing for the prime care of children and home. In the fifth family (Williams) Miriam worked full time but her mother, who lived in the household until she died, fulfilled many of the mothering tasks for her three grandsons. A fairly strong religious background was evident in all the families. However, the behavioral expression of reli- gious sentiment varied greatly, especially among the sib- lings. Less than 1/3 of the siblings were active church members. In two of the families the parent generation had ceased active church participation. Differences also existed among the families. The most obvious difference being their distinct histories and the circumstances which had brought them to their present stage of development. The Richmond family stood out as different from the other families in the area Of family traditions and, transgenerational linkages. Ties between all four genera- 102 tions of the family were very strong and the influence Of grandparents on the third generation (siblings) was notable. The sibling generation (3rd) in this family still maintained family traditions passed on by their grandparents in the areas of food, celebrational events and crafts. This fact was not found to be true among the other families. In the area of family activities the Tomourien family was quite distinct. The Tomourien siblings seldom spoke of frequent extended or nuclear family gatherings. picnics, vacation trips, or shared sporting activities occurring during their developmental years. Whereas these family activities were of paramount importance and frequently men- tioned by members of the other families. The Tomourien family, considered as a whole, was not a socially involved or outgoing family. This characteristic had its history in their father's personality and work, and the presence in the family of a retarded child. This last factor inhibited this family from going far from home. They would have done more things together as a family if it had not been for their retarded brother. It needs to be added that this family gained other qualities because of this factor. Three of the four siblings spoke directly of learning patience, humaness and compassion because of interaction with their youngest brother. Even today the siblings do not get together as a unit very Often preferring to maintain the dyadic relation- ships they have enjoyed over the years in the family. 103 Among the Williams, Richmond and Stevens families there was an intensive and influential involvement in the sporting events of the brothers which served to strengthen family togetherness. It was in this arena that the brothers repor- ted that they developed needed skills in interpersonal rela- tionships with members of their own sex. Organized sports were not an activity for involvement in the Vitale and Tomourien families. The spirit of competition singled out the Vitale family from the others. The continual challenge which the brothers either represented or gave to one another fed their competi- tive natures to be the best, "a cut above." Based on the data reviewed in this chapter it was evident that the families included in this study were indeed somewhat' close knit, and enjoyed a satisfactory level of interactions. In only one of the families was there evi- dence of a broken relationship among the brothers to the extent that they had little or nothing to do with one ano- ther. The brothers, in general, had a fairly high regard for one another, usually enjoyed each other's company, did a number of things together, and where there were definite differences in life philosophy or life style these did not appear to greatly interfere with the basic bond among them. For the most part the brothers interviewed evidenced a certain pride in their brothers valuing them as persons and their relationship with them. 104 CHAPTER IV FUNCTIONS OF BROTHERS Iningnusiigp Five research questions (see Chapter II) guided the investigation into the nature and meaning of the adult brother role in the family. Questions #1, #3 and #4 will be discussed in Chapter V and Questions #5 and #6 will be discussed in Chapter VI. Research Question #2 is considered in this present chapter. Research Question #2 asked: What are the functions that brothers perform within the family system? According to Biddle (1979) the concept of function is involved with the consequences of behavior. He defined function according to Levy (1952) as "any condition or state of affairs that results from behavior." (Biddle 1979. p.51) Functions may be "social" (recognized), "manifest" (intended), or "latent" (unintended).As such function is a dependent variable conse- qUent on behavior. In 1975 Bank and Kahn indentified six major "functions" that siblings performed for one another within the context of their family environment. These were: identification, 105 differentiation, mutual regulation, direct service. negotia- ting with parents and pioneering. Of these functions iden- tification and differentiation were termed by Bank and Kahn as the "glue" of sibling relationships. Identifieetien is that sibling function which refers to the learning process among siblings through which one child sees himself/herself in the other and experiences life vi- cariously through the behavior of the other. and begins to expand on possibilities for himself/herself by learning through a brother or sister's experiences (Bank and Kahn,1975). Differentietien is that sibling function which refers to the process among siblings whereby each child comes to regard himself/ herself as unique and independent from their siblings, especially from Older ones (Bank and Kahn,1975). Mntnei_pegnieten is the "process by which sibs serve as mirrors, sounding boards, and testing grounds for one another" (Schvaneveldt and Ihinger 1979; p.459). "Siblings provide an 'observing egO' for one another that can exert an effective and corrective impact upon, and for, each other" (Bank and Kahn 1975; 503). Dineet_§enyiee was described by Bank and Kahn as the function whereby: Siblings perform valuable, tangible services for each other. They teach each other Skills, lend each other money, manipulate powerful friendship rewards for one another, and serve as controllers of resources;...Bro- thers and sisters can act as buffers for each other, interposing themselves between their sib and the outside world (p. 504). 106 flgieneening seems to occur when one sibling initiates a process thereby giving permission to the others to follow accordingly" (Bank and Kahn 1975; 506). It is a question of who did it first. The Oldest sibling usually "gets to do" certain things first and thus breaks the ice for the younger siblings to follow. "Pioneering patterns include breaking explicit family rules, staying out late, smoking dope, dri- ving the family car, spending allowances on the "wrong things", or taking new developmental pathways - e.g. leaving the family. (or) adopting different morals/political codes, and life styles unimaginable to the parents" (Bank and Kahn 1975; 506). " NSEQIIELIDE.E1£D.R§L§HL§ was the sixth function sugges- ted by Bank and Kahn. According to the authors siblings negotiate with parents in at least four different ways which are facilitated by coalitions: 1) balancing the power of the parents; 2) joining; 3) secret telling and tattling; and 4) translating. "Balancing" occurs when a sibling "colludes with a parent or other sibling(s) to equalize forces or neutralize conflict" (Schvanveldt and Ihinger 1979; 460). "Joining" exemplified the adage "together we stand divided we fall." Siblings can negotiate with more strength toge- ther against the parents than alone. "Secrets and tattling" represent both the open and closed nature of the sibling system. Sibs can use information for personal benefit with parents (tattling). or maintain a loyal bond among them- selves through protecting each other private worlds. Lastly, 107 through "translating" siblings "can serve as a bridge for one another between their world and that of adults" (Bank and Kahn 1975; 505). Furthering their research efforts Bank and Kahn (1982) combined identification and differentiation into a continuum which they designated as "Patterns of Identification". The model they developed is reproduced below in Table 4.1. Using their model in this research study each of the brother relationships was categorized from each brother's perspec- tive. Placing each relationship into a category was based on the interview data of how individual brothers spoke of their relationship to their brothers. In the case of the constel- lation of only one brother with two older sisters the cate- gorization had to be made based on his relationship with his sisters. ' fifibtl uapmdmmummm. mum Pin-Hm fwd“ aa— Tau-g M 'wupu-uauea.u~u-u-' . ~m hid: Tau-vblnflth-hen' 0 We. Ila—fix Why-‘hl‘bhuflem' gram» Loyola-queue MW: “N'nfieonb-eeym‘b'ld-muddueh dwbfidud‘m' WWI: MM: 'M'ueleMMbwe-dmep g Mbwdub'ufl’ < t Wendel-ale MW 'fl'nfludhuym‘hifiulylhe. > “Mundoehuhayhu‘ Due-I libel-Inhale- MW 'h'IIQMh-mldu'l‘bw-m ‘l-wI-Iuheeeaelhpu' 2 W M "b‘nhlyflel—ln-ee-uhth'I-dnl E he’tlhm-dld-‘canfll-u-eyuepb“ MMIdTch-euecbnuwdb-eypwemd *M=fl*._m~u [delete heelMeethedn-uudbyehymueuluyw mlumeMed mum-edema.“ hue “Mmlmtbufiwhemvhflmtkpmmdhfldhmu. Scarce: Beak. Stephen end Micheel lehn. The Sibling Bond. Beeic Books, 1982 . p.85 Used with permission of euthore 108 file 0.! The. e! Ede-eutectic- be. We comm of mud flee- Peeeul fleece: love I 'finT-ny in: ioufi' ' «.1313 I M I MW '0 enun- flet-etm IO—OJ net-e33.- J—uol I—OJ JehOJ-e J—QJ 3—9; I I “III. {—9 lancer-.1 '—”| I—e' ”ON |”' um- - w.” ‘ 'H. ' “II-u 40—9. m ”at“ 14-93 “In. .4—01 Ital- JeeltCeeel l . lecith- EH: ““8 u ‘ he 1h .05 u. I”. 'e” m, Table 4.2 is an adapted use of Bank and Kahn's model. In Table 4.2 each relationship was placed under a specific "type" and directionality of the relationship type was indi- cated by an arrow. Based on the functions of the type of identification the resulting relationships among the bro- thers were explored. The question Of interest became: what effect does the type of identification (function) have on brother's adult relationships with one another? Each sib- ling constellation was considered separately in the ana- lysis. Patterns of similarities and differences were con- sidered briefly throughout and more extensively in the con- cluding section on this question. Continual reference to Table 4.1 and Table 4.2 may be necessary for following the 109 text analysis on the function of identification. Each constellation of brothers was considered separate- ly along with the major functions delineated by Bank and Kahn. Identification and Differentiation were considered under their new schema. The function of "negotiation with parents" was not considered since this function was; 1) judged to pertain more to the parent/child system; 2) no direct questions were asked about coalition formations; and 3) the analysis of the interview data yielded very little data pertaining to the processes within negotiation. .Eilliams_flzgthcns Wen The Williams brothers were described in Chapter III as being similar but different from one another. Blaine, the Oldest, was described as being independent, a risk taker, confident in himself and in work, a person who "seldom confided" and was hard to get to know. John was the aggres- sive, competitive, and persistent brother who worried about hurting people's feelings. He was more people oriented than Blaine. The youngest, James, was described as cautious, organized, conservative, lacking in confidence and the hu- morist of the family. With the exception of James's relationship with his brothers (Hero Worship) the dyadic relationships among these brothers fell within the "Dynamic Independent" category. According to Bank and Kahn (1982) this type of relationship 110 is characterized by the statement: "We're alike but differ- ent. This is challenging and creates opportunties for both of us to grow"(p.99). Bank and Kahn regard this type of relationships as the healthiest. Some sibling relationships appear to be balanced on a fulcrum of equality, with brothers and sisters close in age constantly contesting and challenging each other while striving for individual uniqueness. Concepts of differences prevail but are tempered by ongoing feelings of affinity and respect. This is in many ways the most ideal of the sibling bonds. since it permits change, contact, and healthy challenge throughout life.(p.99) The catalyst person enabling a more equal and indepen- dent relationship situation among these brothers was the Oldest, Blaine. Characterized as a "loner" he created his own rules and philosophy of life. As he said: "Very few people influence me." He set a standard of achievement and if his brothers wished to be challenged by it all well and good; if not, it was their life. Blaine's explicit differen- tiation, not so much by wanting to be different from his brothers who were younger, but by not seeing himself as an overt model, served, it seems, to create a dynamic of mutual independence between himself and John. He related to James in this way but it was not reciprocal. Adjusting to this type of relationships was not easy for John. He would rather, at least according to his interview statements, have a more "mutually dependent" type of relationship. Blaine seemed to be more acute in recognizing the differences among his brothers sensing that "clingingness and false mutuality would nullify the sharp edge of differences that make such a 111 relationship (dynamic independence) an ongoing challenge to each participant"(Bank and Kahn 1982. p.99). James's relationship with his brothers was typed as "Hero Worship". Although this has lessened with age he has not yet, based upon interpretation of his comments, moved into a full equality of relationship with his brothers. In some dimen- sions of his relationship be exhibited traits of a "mutually dependent" type. Both Blaine and John recognized that James had not come into his own as yet. His brothers stood before him as a challenge but he had not achieved equal par with them by achieving something in his own right. Because James appeared to epitomize the "Hero Worship" type of relation- ship, especially during his childhood and adolescence. the following extensive quote is included from the interview with him. I admired everything they did. They were my Older brothers and I looked up to them. They took me places and I grew up just assuming the way they trea- ted me was how brothers acted. I admired them for that. I wanted to be like them, follow in their foot- steps. All the things I got involved in they did be- fore me. They influenced what I did. In some ways they were a challenge to me - they did a lot of things well and I wanted to not let them down - a matter of pride, not a pressure thing. The sibling literature. in particular Bank and Kahn (1975) refers to a pioneering role function performed by the oldest sibling. Schvaneveldt and Ihinger stated: "Pioneer- ing seems to occur when one sibling initiates a process thereby giving permission to the others to follow according- ly." (Burr et al 1979, p.460) Although pioneering is seen 112 as distinct from identification by Bank and Kahn the stance or relationship position that Blaine took in relationship to his brothers served to establish a "state of affairs" (function) which in adulthood has resulted in a healthy sibling bond situation. If he maintains the tension of "Dynamic Independence" the possibility remains present, at least from this researcher's perspective, of James being challenged to move from "Hero Worship" to a more vital type of relationship. MuiuaI_R§sula£12n Among the Williams brothers there was evidence of very little if any mutual regulation. This may have been due to the family's operative theme of "freedom with responsibili- ty." As oldest. Blaine, saw "no reason" to monitor his brothers' activities or correct them. "They always worked and were family involved. I used to chuckle about some of the things they did." (Blaine). John recalled that he never monitored his brothers when younger. "Our questioning Of one another today is more informational."(John) However. John has been trying to exert some impact on Blaine the last few years "urging him to visit (parents) more and call more Often." James, youngest, said he tried hard to keep tabs on his Older brothers, but was "not very good at it." He "worried about them a lot when they went out." Dim—Semis: . "Being there when needed" was important for these brot- hers. When John built his new home both of his brothers lent 113 their time and skills to the project helping to keep the labor costs down. According to James, "John is the best at helping both Blaine and myself." He also said that his brothers help him with mechanical items he can't manage. "If it's something each of us knows about we do it for each other. I fix bikes for them and their kids." (James) When John and his dad experienced some difficulty with a new process in their contracting work it was Blaine who took two days off to help them work things out. 2' . It was the oldest brother who fulfilled this function. Blaine led the way in everything and his brothers followed according to their own talents, e.g.. each played football but different positions because of size and abilities. From the data on "identification" it seemed that Blaine most of all pioneered independence and ability to succeed for his brothers. He pioneered the way into the business world for his brothers, although some paternal influence here cannot be ruled out. I was the first to graduate. play sports, and enter a business profession. (Blaine W.) WW II !lE' l' CEIEE ll ll The types of identification relationships among the Vitale brothers were the most varied of the five sibling constellations in that they included the extremes and the middle ground. By examining Table 4.2 it is clear that the 114 relationships among these brothers markedly stand out in contrast to the other constellations. It could be stated that an unhealthy enmeshment appeared to exist among these brothers. Paul held Monk in high esteem, idolizing him, while Bob and Paul were "Fused" to each other, and Monk and Bob were "Rigidly Differentiated". According to Bank and Kahn (1982) these types of relationships are usually proble- matic. These were the brothers who, at least from Bob and Paul's perspective, considered themselves "a notch above other people". Recalling their personality descriptions helps to un- derstand the dynamics of their relationships. Monk. the oldest, was the "loner", the independent Older brother who was "organized", "holds an argument longer", and was "stub- born". Bob was the "intelligent" brother, talented, opinio- nated. and saw himself as the introvert of the family. The youngest, Paul, was the "mediator" of the family possessing "peacekeeping" qualities of calmness along with boundless energy for getting things done. The relationship between Bob and Paul, both middle brothers, has been categorized as "Fused". Bank and Kahn (1982) describe the fused relationship as: "We're just like each other. There is no difference". Such relationships lack "adequate ego boundaries sharply marking one's identity from the other's..." (p.86). Bank and Kahn hold that such relationships have their origin in the siblings' early years. In the case of Bob and Paul their fusing took place, 115 at least according to their interview reports, during ado- lescence. As children Bob had shunned Paul in favor of peers setting up a situation which resulted in the oldest brother, Monk, taking Paul, the youngest, under his wing. This began a time of "Hero Worship" by Paul of his brother, Monk. Sometime during the late teens a falling out occurred between Monk and Bob which resulted in a closer bonding of Bob with Paul. They either discovered how alike they were or rediscovered a type of relationship they were not able to maintain as children. Based on an interpretation of the data the later was probably the case. When Bob was 14 years Old he left home for two years to attend to Preparatory high school. Paul would have been 9 years Old at the time. This time of separation in conjunction with the earlier choice by Bob of peers over his brother may have delayed a fusing during childhood years. The "Fused" type of relationship between Bob and Paul was chosen based on such interview statements as: "We think alike. We see one another in each other. We can pick up on what each is thinking and feeling."(Bob) "There is little, if any, difference between myself and my brothers." "A brother is another self. My parents taught us to look out after the welfare of one another. They come first."(Paul) It was Bob and Paul who shared competitive interests in art. Their relationship came before all others, even at times their spouses. The "Hero Worship" type of relationship characterized Paul's relationship to Monk. (This type was fully described 116 earlier in the consideration of Williams brothers.) As a youngster Paul said he really enjoyed doing things with Monk. "When I was younger Monk was the big brother and I looked up to him. He took me under his wing, tried to make me like him. Real good buddies when we were small." (Eight years separate these two brothers) When Monk "fell in with the wrong crowd after high school" it was Paul who reversed the protective role and kept watch on him, talked to him and kept his parents up on what was going on. From the inter- view data it became clear that Paul idolized his brothers and was very identified with both of them. He has both imitated and competed with Monk in hunting and organization- al skills and, according to Bob, surpassed Monk in both. Being the "peacemaker" in the family Paul appears to have accomplished this in a "peaceful" manner avoiding any alien- ation. However, as was evident in a statement by Monk (below) some ill feelings did exit. Monk's relationship to Paul has been categorized as "Dynamically Independent". There was a strong bond between the two of them. His identification with Paul was primarily due to their common interests in hunting and fishing. On Monk's part he recognized that there were strong differences which have developed in adulthood and which put a certain tension into their relationship: "Paul used to look up to me and respected my knowledge and patience with him for several years. Not anymore. At times he now considers my judgments and decisions with disdain. Irregardless. we still spend close to 100 days a year in our outdoor activities getting along very well."(Monk) 117 This ability on Monk's part to maintain a healthy tension over differences with Paul was what was missing with Bob. His relationship with Bob has been categorized as "Rigidly Differentiated". Bank and Kahn (1982) summarize such relationships with the statement: "You're so different from me. I don't want to depend on you and I never want to become like you"(p.105). Such relationships have serious imbalances in their "ledger" system (Boszormenyi-Nagy and Spark.1973). Hurts, mistrust, resentments and victimization leave real obstacles in the way of siblings ever regaining a respect and equality with each other. A dialectic process is set in motion which cuts Off possibilities of change. The relationship becomes frozen in time (Bank and Kahn,1982). Monk and Bob's relationship history was indicative of what has been seen in other brother relationships. i.e. the type of relationship at present is not what it had been in the past. Some event(s) occurs which changes the dynamics. As a child Bob looked up to Monk and held him in respect as an authority person in the family. Although he looked up to him he chose not to follow him. While Monk was interested in cars, Bob played around with science and his chemistry sets. Today both Monk and Bob see their relationship as "worlds apart". "He (Bob) and I have practically no inter- action. He goes his way and I go mine. We've had some disagreements in the past, nothing serious, but he doesn't 118 seem to forget them."(Monk) This perspective was mutual: "Both of us are set in our ways. worlds apart."(Bob) Dif- ferences relative to children and material goods seem to have been the underlying issues creating conflict between these two brothers in their adult years. Their relationship seemed to be a case of not being able to live in tension with each other's differences. Being that Monk was des- cribed as stubborn by nature and Bob was closed about his feelings, the prospect of change in their present 'freeze' is dim. In such rigid differentiation: The siblings form negative perceptions of one another. and their identifications are based on a polarization: neither wants to be like the other and dislikes, even hates, what he or she sees in the other.(Bank and Kahn. 1982. p.106) W121! Bob regarded himself and his brothers as being "very protective" of one another. He said "we all monitored each Other, and we still look out for each other's well being. Don't want any of us giving a bad name to the family." The youngest brother, Paul, kept tabs on his oldest brother for a few years after Monk graduated high school. He "fell in with the wrong crowd and I kept watch on him, talking to him, and kept mom and dad up on what was going on."(Paul) Although Monk was not interviewed his written comment about being the "protector" may indicate that he at some time also kept careful watch and corrected his younger brothers. 119 Dipept Sepyipe Both Bob and Paul reported a considerable amount of helping one another. "There's a lot of offering of help but just as much declining the other's assistance. We'd do anything for one another and never refuse a call for help. If we go to dinner everyone offers to pay, same for paying for gas on a trip."(Bob) When the brothers used to go on family trips it was Paul who made sure everything was bought and readied. Between Bob and Paul there was a lot of advice and tip sharing on mutual interests: hunting, art. and purchases of material goods. 212122221112 It was Bob who was the first to do and try various things. He went against his dad's code which only allowed the purchase of used cars when he was the first to buy a new car. He was also the first to marry and buy a home. Thus he was the forerunner in breaking away from family and traditions in a positive manner. Monk had broken away earlier but in a more "rebellious" sort of way by becoming a "loner" and hanging with the "wrong crowd". fiflfifl£n§_finflih££§ W The Stevens brothers evidenced a mixture of relation- ship types from "Blurred" to "Dynamically Independent". The mixture even permeated the same relationship. It may help to recall the basic descriptions of these brothers as 120 outlined in Chapter III. Todd, the oldest. and Dennis. the youngest, were both quiet and shy types who have since childhood related well to one another seemingly because of their temperments. Todd was the one who felt like the "forgotten man". Al, the middle brother, was the opposite: outgoing, competitive and aggressive. He was the brother who was always more interested in doing "his own thing". In addition Todd was the one who felt like "the forgotten man." The relationship between Todd and Dennis was clearly one Of mutual dependency. They lived together, helped one another with many basic needs and looked out for each anot- her. Neither challenged the other or provided a clear enough opposite image to provoke change. There was a defi- nite 'static' quality to the relationship as it was por- trayed in the interview data. Todd's relationship to Al was a mixture of the way it was and the way it was becoming. Todd lacked a solid self confidence and thus looked to his "stronger, more assertive brother" as a model. He "wishes to be like" Al, i.e. "more aggressive, a gO-getter" instead of just floating through life. Todd had a real admiration for his younger brother. At the same time there existed, and this was probably due to distance and limited contact over the last seven years, a "dynamic independence". The "alike but [very] different" was true Of these two brothers. Al was constantly challenging Todd, influencing him in areas of physical fitness, current events, financial investments and clothes. Al pushed his brother to strive for bigger and 121 better things. The relationship between A1 and Dennis was one of "Dynamic Independence". Unlike Todd, Dennis did not sit in admiration of his brother, Al, wishing to be like him. Dennis was certainly challenged by Al "to do greater things", but he was the one who made the choices about what he would do. Al has been away from his brothers for long enough periods of time so that his "pushy" attitude did not appear to create an unhealthy tension among the brothers in adulthood. When they were together they reported that they enjoyed one another and could be relaxed about their differ- ences. The brothers gave the impression that the .conflict and competition of their childhood years were a thing of the past. They appeared to have recognized what each can Offer to the others: Al continually offered challenge and excite- ment while Todd and Dennis offered A1 a stable reference point for his nomadic existence. As with the other brother relationships one brother seemed to set a certain 'tone', different enough from his brothers, to provide a kind of 'pioneering' or 'reference' point for the others. He was the one spoken of more in conversation. This function of differentiation or partial identification created a dynamic for challenging and growth producing change in the relationships. It seems that as long as one brother ceased to remain static, the constella- tion system was kept in motion either in a positive or negative direction. The adjustments which got made kept 122 open the opportunities for growth. In the case of the Stevens brothers it was Al, the middle brother, who provided the needed stimulus for this dynamic, whereas in the Williams and Tomourien family it was the oldest. W The Stevens brothers did not speak very much about regulating one another as children and adolescents. On Al's part. he "was doing his own thing" and didn't take time to check on his brothers. However, now as an adult he has been continually "monitoring their life program and urging them on to do greater things." (Al) The youngest, Dennis, said he had tried "to Offer some unsolicited advice" once in a while but he was never sure it was very effective. Todd, oldest, was shy about monitoring his younger brothers. He let Al go his own way and had Dennis as a close companion. All three brothers spent more time watching out for their Older sister and who she dated. W Among these brothers direct service was evident and varied. Todd and Dennis who lived together did a lot of daily chores for one another: care of each other's dogs. errands, washing of cars, and shared housekeeping chores. "There's a lot of favor doing for each other."(Dennis) Todd has done a lot financially for his brothers. He helped A1 with a loan for his car, and helped Dennis purchase the house they share. Todd did a lot for his sister before she remarried. He would take her to shows and dinner, and 123 provided her with needed companionship. Al's talent with finances was a way he served his brothers. As Todd said: "I look to Al to keep me informed about financial deals and investments." 8' . Todd alone made reference to his older sister's pioneering functions. "She tried things first, the pioneer - dating, drinking, driving. She was the 'guinea pig'." Todd, as oldest brother, did not fulfill this function for his brothers. Rather it was Al, middle brother, who tried everything first whether it was in sports, dating or travel- ing. As he expressed it: "I feel responsible for opening up new areas Of life to my brothers." IQEQHL122_§£2£h££§ W A mutual dependency characterized the relationships among the Tomourien brothers. Such relationships as des- cribed by Bank and Kahn (1982) are summed up with the fol- lowing statement: "We're the same in many ways. We'll always need and care for each other in spite of our differ- ences"(p.96). Bank and Kahn further specify "Mutually Dependent Type Relationships": When siblings accept each other's differences. without necessarily liking them, and still find many relevant points of sameness, they can often be generous and giving in spirit to one another. They fulfill Frances K. Grossman's (1972) criteria for a mature sibling relationship in which ambivalent feelings are likely to be experienced and acknowledged.(p.96) 124 It is a trait of such relationships that they are "static" and that there are "givers" and "takers". Similar to the oldest Williams brother, Jim (oldest brother), set the 'tone' for his brothers. As described earlier in Chapter III, he was something of a "surrogate father" or "paternal caretaker". There was a reliance upon him by all of his siblings and he took it upon himself to "worry" over and make sure "everyone is going down the right path" (Jim). Ivan, the intelligent member of the family, was Jim's "side-kick" lending his assistance in fulfilling family business. Conservative and inward by nature Ivan got along well with Jim and had a dependency upon him. Doug. the "storyteller". also depended upon Jim and because of his rebellious, outdoor nature, has provided Jim with more to worry about. The dependency among these brothers. although mutual, was also unequal. Jim provided more of the emotion- al giving and caring with Ivan and Doug being the recipients Of his concern. Jim also watched out for jobs to make sure his brothers had employment. Jim was a "taker" when it came to benefiting from his brothers' skills. The childhood years of working the sheep ranch forged their loyal acceptance of one another. Each has gone his own way in profession and lifestyle. Differences were marked but similarities and common interests put them into a type of mutual dependency. They clearly needed One another. However, their dependency was, as Bank and Kahn portray, "static". In getting to know them there was no sense of 125 vibrancy or positive competitive spirit among them which was characteristic of the "Dynamic Independence" type of rela- tionship. There was a basic desire that each do well but there existed no creative tension which might keep each on his toes. It would seem that as long as the oldest contin- ued to fulfill a role of a "paternal caretaker" an imbalance will exist in attitude and the "state of affairs" will remain static. MW During childhood the function of mutual regulation was not operative among these brothers according to the oldest. Jim: "We went our own ways, independent, free sailing. Not even mom could keep tabs on us because she was so busy with Ralph." In adolescence and adulthood this has changed. Both Jim and Ivan "keep an eye on Doug." They "get on him about his friends, but it hasn't done any good. It's hard to dent a rock." (Ivan) Ivan seemed to take his monitoring activity seriously: "You gotta be concerned about what your brother is doing." Ivan. at one time, was the Object of Jim's solititous behavior after he came home from college and was into drinking too much. Doug has recognized the importance of his brothers "getting on him": "I may have been a little wilder without Jim and Ivan around. They would get on my case when I goofed up." 21W 1 Both Ivan and Doug possessed skills in construction and carpentry which they have put at the service of each other 126 and the family. When Jim built his home it was Ivan and Doug who did much of the work. Doug's love and ownership of horses has enabled him to be Of service to his brothers and sisters who have him teach their children how to ride and care for horses. Besides helping one another in these ways not much else was stated which indicated other forms of direct service occurring among these brothers. W No explicit references to pioneering behavior emerged from the interview data. Ivan's statement, that as children "Jim shunned us", was indicative of the lack of explicit following of him in his pursuits. Certainly Jim, Ivan and Doug have each gone their own ways, and each has allowed the other the freedom to do so, but not without critical obser- vation. Wm Within Thus far the sibling constellations have included at least three brothers. The Richmond constellation stood in marked contrast in that there was only one brother with two Older sisters. For Joel Richmond there were no Older or younger brothers with whom to identify. His socialization experience was totally with his sisters. He became the family "humorist" whose outgoing and likeable nature has won him the admiration of his sisters. Joel developed a strong identification with his sister closest in age. It was 127 highly possible that such a close identification would not have developed given the fact that Joel was the youngest, but it did and probably because of two factors: 1) the close knit nature of the family combined with a willingness on the part of the sisters to become involved in Joel's athletic activities, and 2) the strong differentiation of the young- er sister from the older sister. As with some of the other sibling relationships. the identification pattern among these siblings has shifted over the years. For completeness and a view of the sibling subsystem the relationship between the sisters is also included here. Joel and Dawn were always alike in personality -- out- going, athletic and competitive. It was the two of them "against" Carol, the oldest sister. Throughout childhood and adolescence they had a relationship which was a mixture Of "Mutual Dependency" and, on Dawn's part, "Hero Worship". They were loyal to one another, sticking together, and "covering up for one another". Dawn highly admired Joel: I always admired him - popular, humorist, outgoing - had a lot of friends. I wanted to imitate him. He was my idol when he was older. even in Junior High he was my idol.(Dawn) As Bank and Kahn (1982) stated: "Idealization is usually a temporary phenomenon"(p.92). This was true for Dawn of Joel. As adults they have moved into a relationship of "Dynamic Independence" but not without maintaining for a few years a strong "Mutual Dependency". The fact that their relationship has changed over the years speaks of an 128 underlying dynamism, and an ability to allow the other to be who he or she is. They were there for one another as friends, protectors, confidants, rescuers, and now as adults there exists a healthy respect for who each other has become and what each has achieved. The turmoil of adolescence, especially for Dawn, has forged a life-long bond between Joel and herself. Today they recognize their similarities and differences, and are likely to challenge one another, at least covertly, because they are stronger persons individu- ally. Joel appeared to have always had a "Dynamically Inde- pendent" type Of relationship with Carol. They were actual- ly "more alike than different" according to Carol, but the differences have been important more for Carol than for Joel. Even though younger Joel's outgoingness and athletic activities challenged Carol to engage in acitivities she otherwise never would have tried. Being more the "Bookworm" type Carol regarded herself as a "wall flower" until some of Joel's outgoingness and humor "rubbed off" on her and she began to socialize more. Carol's intelligence and knowledge have been a point of reference and challenge for Joel to scrutinize his own attitude toward education. Joel regards Carol as being committed to family life, and this has rubbed Off on Joel who, according to his sisters, surprised both of them by becoming a dedicated husband and father.“ In the other sibling groups one sibling seemed to set the 'tone' for the sibling relationships, holding to his own 129 uniqueness and being a reference point for the others. With the Richmonds there emerged a different dynamic which could or could not be associated with their constellation type. Each of the siblings in his or her own way set a 'tone' - Carol set her mind on academics and a career choosing to be "straighter" than her sibs. She provided a clear model for Dawn and Joel, a model they chose to ignore. As a teenager Dawn became the "Problem Child", the trouble-maker, a role which created conflict between herself and Carol, and a protecting rescuing bond between herself and Joel. In the midst of this Joel set another 'tone' by covertly having the family' focus on him in his athletic achievements. After interviewing this group of siblings a dynamic interplay emerged whereby each sibling appeared to be 'bouncing off' the others, incorporating and/or rejecting the other's indi- vidual aspects in the process of forming his or her own uniqueness. W A good amount of mutual regulation occurred among the the Richmonds. Joel, as youngest, "used to watch out for who they [his sisters] dated. If guys bothered them I would speak up for them." Joel's sisters, especially Dawn, would get on his case about his manners and behaviors around girls: "I hope you don't eat like that around other girls, or eat like that in other homes." Joel related that his sisters would caution him about getting a girl in trouble or getting her home late from a date. The type of monitoring 130 done by Dawn was reflected in her statement: In high school when Joel was roudy or came home late I would remind him to call. watch out for himself. If not home on time I'd call around for him and even go out after him. Better I did it than dad. I would remind him how he should behave with girls - doing things she would like. W A lot of helping with little things occurred among the Richmonds. Joel has provided his sisters with "advice about how to handle their husbands" while his sisters have done much for helping to socialize Joel to the needs of women. When Carol needed Joel's truck for certain chores it was always made available. Joel had lent his sisters assistance with lawn and garden care, and instructed them in water- skiing and racquetball. Carol provided Dawn with a lot of finanacial assistance with her budgeting since Carol was a financial "wizard". This service has gone on for about 3 years to help Dawn "bail out" of her financial problems. In addition to specific tasks performed for one another there existed a lot of advice seeking about homes, children and parents. W The presence of adolescent conflict among the sisters seemed to have obviated any pioneering functions on Carol's part. Both her younger sister and brother rejected her more academic and serious approach to life opting for more fun. What came through in the interviews was that the two young- est pioneered into areas where one or the other has fol- lowed. Joel's involvement in sports opened up possibilities 131 for his sisters. They have tried various activities at his instigation. Dawn pioneered the movement of a woman of the family into the male world of heavy equipment manufacturing. She preceded this by being the first girl in high school to be allowed to enroll in the welding program. The pioneer- ing activities of Dawn and Joel have given each sibling support and encouragement to try something different or at least to be open to it. Summau Five of the six functions delineated by Bank and Kahn (1975) and which were performed by siblings for one another were used to analyze the brother relationships among the subjects. Identification (and its patterns) was the major function among siblings reviewed. Each of the dyadic brot- her relationships was categorized and discussed according to Bank and Kahn's (1982) model of "Patterns of Identifica- tion". The identification type was seen to have developed primarily in childhood and had an influence on the brother relationships in adult life, but it was also found that the type of identification changed over the lifespan, at least from childhood to early adulthood. Based on the results Of this study a tentative proposition was advanced regarding the actual function of identification by brothers. It seemed that as long as one brother in the constellation chose to be different, and maintained a Dynamic Independent relationship, the constellation system was kept in motion, 132 providing the possibility for continual change and growth. Mutual regulation was seen as being more operative as a function among the brother constellations where there was a rebellious or problem type behavior occurring. This was true with the Tomourien, Richmond and Vitale brothers. As a function direct service among siblings was evident and, for the most part, frequent. The continual exchange of goods and services was seen as maintaining a constant give and take among the brothers which, in some cases, strength- ened and built the relationship. Pioneering, the fifth function considered, was evident in four of the five brother groups. For these brothers the pioneering function seemed to serve to open up to each brother new possibilities in life. 133 CHAPTER V MEANING, ROLES, AND EXPECTATIONS OF BROTHERS IELLQQHQIIQD The discussion of the families and the sibling constel- lations in Chapter III, and exploration of the functions of brother in Chapter IV have hopefully given the reader a "feel" for each family in the study and the nature of the brother relationships within each family. Chapter V now considers the findings on three of the concepts key to the present study of the adult brother role: 1) meaning, 2) roles, and 3) expectations. Each concept was explored dur- ing the individual interviews, and the findings summarized here represent the subjective perspectives of the study's subjects. Each sibling possessed his or her own personal attachment to a brother or brothers and what each meant to them. What the general findings in this chapter do not communicate is that intangible "something" that binds brothers together in a lifelong relationship where "blood is thicker than water." The roles each brother plays within his family were found to be the result of a dynamic inter- play between personality, birth position, expectations of brother held by family members, and the family environment. 134 WW Reseansb_QuesLign_£l asked: What does it mean to be a brother within a family? The data for this research question came primarily from the responses by the siblings inter- viewed tO three questions from the Interview Guide S: 23. Does it have a special meaning for you to have had a brother? 24. How would you express the meaning your brother has for you? 44. What qualities do you associate with the role of brothers in a family? Responses to the above questions varied slightly from family to family. However, the one response which was given almost universally as to the meaning of a brother was: a brother is someone who is always there when you need him. He can be depended upon. He is that "close friend", "another self" who is loyal and trustworthy. This "being there" came through as the fundamental nature of what it means to be a brother. The expression encompasses a number of other statements made by siblings about the meaning of a brother. A brother is: a companion. the ultimate friend. someone with whom to share ideas and activities. It was important for those brothers interviewed that their brothers be: someone they can talk to, share activities with. be a pal or playmate, a real close companion. Sisters, in particular, saw their brothers as "protec- tors", those persons who represented Or provided a source of security and stability within the family. They looked to 135 them for help and support. It was very important that their brothers "be there" when needed. The meaning ascribed to being a brother in most instan- ces was very much related to their family experience. For the Tomourien sisters the meaning they attached to their three brothers was linked to the factor of their father's absence due to death. Thus their brothers provided a "col- lective father image." They were the "male network", the "safety net" for them. The Williams brothers stressed "loyalty", a characteristic passed on by their father. The importance of a brother being "another self", the "ultimate friend" was key for the Vitale brothers who liked to see themselves as very close. Being a "pal" or a "companion" was central for the Stevens brothers who, when together, enjoyed sports and recreational activities. Qualities which subjects associated with the role of brothers in a family were varied but tended to be slightly more instrumental than expressive. Table 5.1 lists the qua- lities identified by participants according to sibling constellation. Qualities named three or more times are asterisked. Above all other qualities a brother is "helpful". Asso- ciated wih helpfulness is being "dependable", and "suppor- tive". These three instrumental qualities were mentioned most frequently. On” the expressive side a brother is "loyal", "honest", and "respectful". Since brothers are 'to be there when needed' the qualities mentioned most Often 136 Table 5.1 Qualities Ascribed to Brothers by Brothers and Sisters(1) Qualities Ascribed to Brothers By Brothers By Sisters Loyal Loyal Helpful" Helpful" Supportive" Supportive" Dependable Dependable Trustworthy" Honest Respectful Respectful" Compassionate Kind Open . Loving Affirming Protective" Understanding Empathic Involved in similar activities 1 Source: Interview data. question #44. Appendix H " Quality mentioned 3 or more times were in congruence with what the siblings interviewed saw as the meaning of being a brother. Several terms were used to express an empathic quality that brothers should have. The qualities mentioned were: understanding, compassion. appreciation of other's feelings, consideration, kindness and love. Theoretically these qua- lities when present should serve to maintain a close bondedness among siblings, improving the quality of their relationships. 137 Rgles Qfl Bpptheca In Chapter I, consideration was given to the concept of 'role'. It was pointed out that the term itself is open to diverging opinions and that a common definition is difficult to achieve. Burr et a1 (1979) was cited to indicate that a number Of terms have arisen in the research literature tO explain the phenomenon of role (cf. p.15). According to Biddle (1979) roles are "patterned human behaviors". Per- sons within a particular role orientation are assumed to be somewhat alike in behavior. In addition, Biddle states that roles [are learned through 'role playing' and 'role taking' through which a person developes a self concept that is composed, among other things, of a set of role expectations. The development of a person's role concept occurs within an environmental context. In the case of the brother role the environmental context is the family. Based on the literature review it was determined that the term "brother role" would refer to that dynamic aspect of being a brother which includes " the whole complex of behaviors, functions, and expectations or norms which sur- round the very nature of being a brother"(p.17). Reeeenen qneetien #4 asked: What do male siblings per- ceive as the influence of their having a brother and/or a sister on their role development as a brother? This question focused on sibling influence on the development of the 138 brother role. However, it was important first to establish the various roles brothers perceived themselves as performing and how they were perceived by their siblings. What emerged was that there were some sibling roles which were based on age and position and which were patterned within and among families. These roles were performed by either sex. The research of Bossard and Boll (1969) was supported by the present findings. They contend that "whenever the number of persons are in continuing associa- tion with each other, specialization of function occurs" (Bossard and Boll, 1960, p.107). Eight personality roles were identifed by Bossard and Boll in their research on large families. These were: 1)the responsible sibling, 2) the popular, sociable sibling. 3) the socially ambitious, 4) the studious one, 5) the self centered, isolated sib- ling, 6) the irresponsible one. 7) the sick sibling, and 8) the spoiled sibling. Brothers were asked what they considered their role to be in the family. Responses varied and no one role emerged. For each brother a certain role became evident based on a pattern of behavior performed within his family context. Also. certain roles were similar across families. Addition- ally it was found that the roles performed by brothers within their family of origin were both permanent and transitory. stable and interchangeable. Not every sibling in a family saw an individual brother's role in the same way but in general a certain amount of congruence was present. 139 What emerged from the data on sibling roles within the family was that there were covert expectations of what the Oldest sibling's role should be, and when it was not fulfilled a younger sibling assumed or took over that role. In two of the cases where this occurred there existed, on the part of the younger brother, some negative feelings which detracted from the brother relationship. Within their families the brothers interviewed had the following roles which they possessed as part of their own role con- cept and which were expected of them by at least one other Sibling: Information Provider or Problem Solver. Mediator or Peacemaker, the Responsible One, the Protector, Instiga- tor Of Activity, and Jokester or Humorist. The one consis- tent role across constellations was that of the youngest brother. His role was consistently seen as the Practical Joker or Humorist, or Storyteller. The oldest brother has often been seen in past research as the "Responsible One" within a family. This was true in two cases where the younger siblings saw the oldest brother as being a "surrogate father" or "protector". In the OSS-B constellation the oldest sister was clearly seen as the "responsible one." In the other cases it was not that the Oldest adult brothers were not responsible but that their focus of responsibility in adult life had shifted to their own families and to work. They no saw a need as adults to maintain a protective or responsible role in relationship to their younger or Older siblings. In both of these cases the 140 older brother role was assumed by a younger brother who seemed to 'see' a need for someone to be responsible for the sibling group and the family relationships. The brother who was deemed the most intelligent was throughout the lifespan expected to be the "information provider" or "problem solver". In two families this was a middle brother and in one family it was the oldest. Each sibling constellation had its "mediator" but this role was not position specific, although a middle or younger brother was more likely to possess this role. Being an instigator or initiator of family acitivity was usually associated with middle brothers. Based on such a small sample it is impossible to draw any conclusions as to a relationship between role and sib- ling position. The most that can be said is that similar roles existed among various constellations, that roles shifts do Occur. and that certain brothers who possess a greater intensity of obligation toward their family more readily take on a variety of roles. This was evident in the A-B and OBB-S constellations where a middle brother was seen as "Initiator", "Mediator", and "Responsible One." These brothers were consistently more in touch with their siblings and their parents. There seemed to be a greater involvement in the life of their families of origin. One possible explanation for this observed phenomenon among middle brothers may be the push for recognition. for a place within the family system, which is common to middle 141 siblings. Influence of brothers and/or sisters on the role deve- lopment of brothers can at best be described as covert. Only in the OSS-B constellation could it be said that there was overt influence. This influence took the form of direct modeling and mutual regulation. Joel R.. the youngest. perceived that his sisters closeness to him and his closest sister's identification with him formed a certain attachment whereby he payed closer attention to their behavior. advice and values. His own behavior as a brother increased in areas of protection, nurturance, support. and family Obliga- tions. His sisters taught him the importance of these areas of behavior. They modeled certain behaviors which Joel R. has incorporated into his own role repetoire: responsiblity for the family, concern for other people, and spending more time with his parents. Wm Research Questgon #3 asked: What are the individual and familial expectations associated with the role of being a brother? The present question addressed that part of the "whole complex" which is called expectations or norms. Ac- cording to Burr et a1 (1979. p.54): "...the most fundamental part of a definition of role is that it is a more or less integrated set of social norms that are distinguishable from other sets of norms that constitute other roles". 142 As such norms are beliefs or expectations that people ought or ought not to behave in certain ways. In order to assess whether such an integrated set of norms or expectations existed for the role of brothers both siblings and parents were asked about their expectations of the brother in the family (cf. Interview Guide P. questions 9 and 10; Interview Guide 8. questions 16-18). Responses which stressed what brothers "should" do were considered the primary data for the questions. Expectations were consi- dered from both an individual and familial perspective. A question focusing on self expectation of being a brother was not asked and represents a gap in the data. Sibling expec- tations will be considered first followed by parental expec- tations of their own siblings. Expectatipns pf Bcptnecs py Bcptneps Brothers primarily expected one another "to be there when needed." This expectation was expressed in very in- strumental terms. What was most important was that brothers help one another accomplish tasks or projects for which help was needed, e.g. building a house, repairing equipment, maintaining common property, and assisting in a crisis. The expectation is that a brother should "come through" even when not asked. He should know when you need him. This expectation of being there when needed extends to being encouraging, supportive and even challenging to one another. Such expected behavior was indicative that 'my brother is with me and cares about what is happening in my life.' In 143 caring about one another brothers expect each other to be: good friends, open to sharing with one another, and willing to be involved in some similar activities. "A brother will be there when you need him there. He should know when you need him. I don't expect him to be there, he'll be there." (Blaine W.) "That they be good brothers, a good friend, open, some- what compassionate and that we be involved in some similar activities." (James W) "That my brothers will hold to their commitments." (Monk V) "I expect to be challenged by my brothers to do better. We expect high ideals, higher performance. I'm expected to deliver on that expectation." (Bob V) "If I need them to help me with something I expect them to come through, and everyone has." (Dennis 8) "That we encourage and support one another." (Doug S) In addition to these expectations which were more interactional there was a general expectation that brothers have of one another, i.e. that they be successful and happy in what they do whether this be in employment or education. Brothers expected one another to do well. achieving their life goals. Thirdly, brothers expected that there will be a loyalty to the family which would be expressed in such behaviors as: visiting parents, attending family functions, helping with family matters, and being loyal to the family image. Brothers more than sisters seemed to feel it was their responsibility to uphold the family name. "I expect a lot - for them to achieve at whatever they want to do." (Paul C) "I expect that we should be able to make it better in the community because we've a name and a land heritage." (Jim T) 144 "I expected them to be the best, always above average at what they did. I expect Mike to be successful in his business, and for Blaine to excel and make it big in his new work." (James W) "Expect my brother, Jim, to continue to keep the family together." (Ivan T) Wfiflmfim Sisters also spoke of expecting their brothers 'to be there when they needed help', especially at times when a husband was not available. Help was usually seen in instru- mental terms: repairing a car or fixing a household item. For three of the sisters it was really important that one of their brothers, the one they felt closest to, be there to talk with when they needed advice, information, or family companionship and support. In two cases this was, crucial when the sisters were divorced and it was their brothers who provided them with primary friendship and support. In one family there was a strong expectation that the brothers be protective. One of the sisters said it this way: "they never played the role of brother I thought they should, i.e. being protective of Toni and myself." A more commonly held expectation was that their brothers achieve their potential. "I have brothers who will take care of me; an attitude carried over since childhood. I need to know they are there." (Joan T) "Expected them to protect me from harrassment when growing up." (Toni T) "I take it for granted that they'll be there and treat one another well, be supportive and rely on one another." (Toni T) 145 "Expect that my brother will be there to help when my husband is not around." (Carol R) "Expect him to be there if I need him. Always has and I expect it will continue." (Dawn R) "That my brothers will always be there to talk to." (Helen S) "I expect them to be there when I need assistance. If something big should arise I know they'll be there." (Nancy V) WWOIMLW Have expectations of brothers changed over generations? Are there familial expectations which parents pass on from their sibling experience? In order to explore these possi- bilities parents were questioned about their sibling rela- tionships and of their family's expectations of brothers. In three of the families (Stevens, Vitale and Richmond) of those who had brothers subjects responded that they had no personal expectations of their brothers, at least none they could remember. Familial expectations were more likely recollected. Brothers were expected to do the heavier work around the home and family businesses. Brothers were expec- ted to carry on family business ventures, e.g. farming or ranching. On the scant amount of data it was impossible to answer the above questions. Based on what the siblings mentioned about what their parents expected of them as brothers and the family histories it would appear that there was little overt or conscious transfer of expectations of the brother role. The generation of parents .interviewed seemed to have provided their children with great freedom in 146 managing their life relationships and making choices about career and jobs. ansensuscnnpcstatigns Do families indicate a 'family consensus' about expec- tations Of a brother? Earlier in Chapter I the position of Joan Aldous (1978) relative to sibling roles was discussed. She contends that sibling roles are not clearly scripted by norms. Assuming she is correct, then the data on expecta- tions or norms should evidence both low consensus and the presence of ambiguity concerning the role of the brother in the family. Of the expectations mentioned in direct response to questions about expectations there was no expectation which was agreed upon by all families or by all members within a family. However, a majority of the siblings and parents mentioned expectations in two role areas: 1) support; and 2) achievement. It was fairly close to consensus that a brother fulfilled his role in the family when he was there when needed to lend help or support. A brother fulfilled his role when he could be relied upon no matter what the need. Arnstein (1979) in her prologue makes mention that when brothers are "there" when needed, especially during rough times, "they are brothers in the best sense of that word"(p.2). The second area was achievement. Most of the siblings and parents expected their brothers 'to achieve their goals, do well in life and be the best. This achieve- ment expectation was always specific for an individual 147 brother. The data on the meaning of a brother and the expecta- tions held of brothers by family members seemed to indicate a definite set of expectations or norms about the adult brother role. Brothers were expected to play an important role in family survival by being available ["be' there"] when needed in whatever way needed, be it physical or emo- tional. Not stated but seemingly implied was that a brother be available willingly because he wanted to be. Being available included behaviors such as: participation in family functions, maintaining contact, mutual assistance and emotional support in ordinary life events and in crises. It was the composite of all the behaviors, attitudes, and expectations mentioned by the participants which allowed for identifying that an adult brother fulfills his role in the. family when he is available when needed. The data suggests that there is a set of expectations which specify a role for adult brothers. This preliminary conclusion needs to be further tested on larger and more diverse samples Of brothers. The suggestion by Bott and Hill (cited in Burr et al, 1979) needs to be taken into consideration, i.e. that people respond to checklists of ideas much easier than to direct questions about role expectations (p.54). Using the present study's findings and previous research by Arkin (1979) and Ross and Milgram (1982) a checklist° instrument could be constructed to determine if the norms or expecta- tions found here can be duplicated. An objective instrument 148 would allow for various statistical measures to be used. Given a comprehensive checklist it would be conceivable that a broader study on the adult brother role could be conducted without the type of extensive interviewing done for this study. An initial checklist instrument on expectations of adult brothers is presented in Appendix L. Summau Chapter V explored questions surrounding the meaning. role and expectations of adult brothers in the family. "Being there when needed" (Availability), both physically and emotionally, emerged as fundamental to the nature of being a brother. According to both brothers and sisters a brother was: someone who was always there when you need him, posssessing the qualities of helpfulness, dependabili- ty, loyalty, honesty and respectfulness. He was a friend. a companion: and someone with whom to share ideas and acti- vities. This same delination of an adult brother came through in the data on expectations. An adult brother fulfills his role within the family when he is available when needed in whatever way he is needed, be it physical or emotional. His fulfillment of his role was assumed to be somewhat volun- tary. The particular ways of fulfilling this role may vary because as Turner (1962) and others have found, roles may have some commonly agreed upon expectations but there is also considerable room for individual differences, a process 149 referred to as "role making". This aspect of the adult brother role was expressed by one brother when he said: "being a brother is what you make of it. no more. no less." The fourth question considered focused on the influence a brother and/or sister may have on a brother's role de- velopment. The various roles performed by the brothers in this study were presented concluding that the roles evi- denced were not position or sex specific. Regarding influence it was surmised that because of the lack of overt data on this question it was mainly covert. In instances where an oldest brother did not fulfill or 'gave up' his role of being the 'responsible one' a younger brother took it on. Brothers whose internal role concept included feelings of obligation seemed to more readily take on responsible roles within the family. Only within the OSS-B constellation was overt influence found to the extent that it influenced actual behavior. 150 CHAPTER VI SOCIAL ASPECTS W The present chapter considers the final two research questions which focused on the extra-familial aspects of brother relationships. The first half of this chapter dis- cusses the impact of sibling socialization on brothers as this pertains to interpersonal relationshiips in adult life. The second part of the chapter discusses two separate topics which are seen as being re lated to the 'social meaning' of the term 'brother', i.e. surrogate brothers, and membership in brotherhood organizations. W The most studied effect of sibling influence upon one another is that of cross-sex role influence. Brothers and sisters have been found to influence each other's masculine and feminine attributes (Koch.1955; Sutton-Smith and Rosenberg, 1970). Sisters, moreso than brothers, have been found to have an effect on a brother's development of inter- personal relationships with women (Toman, 1970; Arkin, 1979): "contact with sisters seems to provide 'familiarity with expressiveness and relating and thus helps men in their future relationship with women" (Arkin, p.636). Did the 151 sisters included in this study exercise the kind of positive influence evidenced in earlier research? Reeeenen_nneetipn_15 asked: What influence does having a brother and/or sister have on a brother's interpersonal relationships with men and with women in adult life? The questions posed to brothers and sisters were: 25. Did your brother(s) influence you in any way in life? goals? relationships with other peOple? values? 28. Do you feel that any of your brothers helped you to understand and relate to women better? to men? 29. Do you think that your sister(s) helped you to un- derstand and relate to women better? Sensitize you to the female world? A sister's influence upon her brother or brothers was found in this study to depend upon age. position and amount of interaction in childhood and adolescence. Brothers with only a youngest sister saw her as having little or no in- fluence upon them. Brothers who spoke of their sister's influence mentioned three areas of significant impact: 1) dating, 2) comfortableness in being around women, and 3) sensitization to women's feelings. Sisters both directly and indirectly helped their brothers ar range for and prepare for dates providing tips and cues on behavior which would be pleasing and appropriate. Brothers also learned from their sisters indirectly by observing what they liked about their sister's date's behavior. In this area. of dating sisters provide a listening ear and an "observing ego"(Bank and Kahn 1975). 152 Possessing a certain sensitivity to women's feelings was a quality for which brothers with 'influential' sisters were grate ful. The younger brother of two older sisters saw a big difference in guys with and without sisters: "Those without sisters had a harder time talking and dealing with girls feelings. Those with sisters had a lot more respect for a girl's feelings". A respect for women was another quality gained by brothers with sisters. Being comfortable around the opposite sex was viewed as the third influencing factor. It stemmed from the second. Although a brother may feel sensitive to women's feelings it does not guarantee being comfortable around them. The bro- thers who had the greatest amount of contact and interac- tions with their sisters as children and adolescents repor- ted feeling most comfortable around women. Being comforta- ble was characterized by easiness in conversation, lack of shyness, and ability to maintain positive female relation- ships. When asked about the influence their brothers had upon their relationships with men and women brothers focused primarily upon the issues of competition and achievement. Brothers were viewed as tending to teach or model for one another how to be outgoing, assertive and/or aggressive in sports and business. Observing how their brothers handled male friendships was a definite socializing factor. In addition brothers monitored the types of friends their bro- thers chose and exercised a certain protective manner to- 153 wards one another in this area. This protectiveness. among the brothers interviewed, continued to be operative in their adult years. Brothers provided one another, in childhood and adolescence, with an experience of handling conflicts with males and this served as a formative experience for their adult relationships. Other than encouragement and some pointers surrounding the issue Of dating the brothers interviewed did not regard their brothers as having much of an influence on their relationships with women. These brothers seldom discussed their experiences with women. This lack of sharing about female relationships is consistent with the general finding that men find it difficult to share with other men their intimate relationships (Pleck, 1975). The reverse of question #5 was also asked: What role have brothers had in influencing their sister's interper- sonal relationships? The sisters interviewed all reported a positive influence of their brothers relative to their interpersonal relationships with men. Brothers were regar- ded as providing a realistic experience and model for them Of male behavior and needs. Sisters said that they got along better with men than they did with women because of the influence of their brothers. They believed that their brothers helped them to understand men better. This influ- ' ence occurred whether the sister was older or younger than her brothers. An older sister with both older and younger brothers 154 said that having brothers made her more independent and thus she was never intimidated by men. She got along better with men because of her brothers. Growing up in a very male family gave her a more balanced view of human relationships. The youngest sister in the same family found that she was more at ease with men than with women because of her bro- thers. "Men are more real for me. I was exposed to how men act and think". Her brothers helped her to realize herself as a person and that she didn't have to play the "sexual games" in order to be friends with men. It was her closest brother in age who had the greatest influence on her de- velopment of an understanding of men. The Older sister of three brothers found that her brothers provided a realistic role model for her of men. This Sister preferred working with men more than with women because men did not get upset about little things and it was easier to talk with them. She indicated that she looked for the qualities possessed by her brothers in the men she dated. The youngest sister of three brothers related that her brothers influenced, her relative to the type of men she dated. She wanted to marry someone who liked outdoor activi- ties and was good at fixing things around the house. In- directly she provided her brothers with another brother-type relationship. Because Of her brothers she understood her husband's need for "alone time", his desire for the outdoor life, and his hobby of working on cars. She was comfortable 155 with these because of her brothers who also engaged in these activities. Even the youngest brother with two older sisters was seen as having a significant impact on his sisters' rela- tionships with men. As a teenager he provided a critical "observing ego"(Bank and Kahn,1975) for his sisters about their dates. They looked to him for comments about what he liked in girls and he made them think about how they were around guys. This particular brother helped his younger sister realize that men do have feelings. "Mostly you think about men as strong. insensitive, non- caring, hard core and never crying. I saw my father that way, always strong, no problems. But my brother made me realize that men do have feelings and don't like to be put down or made fun of; they have emotions." (Dawn R) Because of her brother this same sister found it easier to relate to men and to empathize with them. Confirming Arkin's findings, this sister reported that the men she knew who had sisters understood her and could relate to the way she felt. It was with men who have sisters that she has developed some significant surrogate brother relationships. These men were more sensitive to women. "It's something they learned from their sisters". 9221;111:121: The data supported a tentative conclusion that brothers definitely have a role as male models for their sisters thus providing a socializing influence which enabled sisters to establish more real and understanding relationships with 156 men, whether these be husbands or close friends. Although their relationships with men may be more real and under- standing this appeared to be no guarantee that these rela- tionships will be more successful or satisfactory. Both sisters. who spoke highly of their brother's influence, have been divorced and remarried. The final question probed was relative to the influence of brothers and sisters on a brother's adult relationships. It was found that sisters exercised, at least a more memor- able Or overt influence in the areas of dating, comfortable- ness in being around women, making friendship more possible, and sensitization to women's feelings. Brothers were in- fluenced by their sisters both verbally and through Observa- tion. Brothers infuenced one another in the areas of compe- tition and achievement. The research find ings of Arkin (1979) and Toman (1969) were substantiated as regards a brother's sex role influence on his sister. They provided sisters with a "realistic" male role model and helped their sisters "deal with" men on more of a friendship basis. Wan It is widely recognized that the term 'brother' has a usage beyond the confines of family membership. It has been used to designate special friends as "surrogate' brothers". Within fraternal organizations members refer to one another as 'brother'. This is true of both secular and religious 157 brotherhoods. Brotherhood. defines, in part, the very con- cept of the Christian community. In the 1960's the term took on a political cultural meaning associated with the Black Power and Chicano Movements in which solidarity and identification with a cause could be symbolized in the word 'brother'. The term. as Arkin has summarized. "has in fact been taken over to symbolize a variety of warm and suppor- tive relationships" (Arkin, 1979. p.632). For the purposes of the present study a fifth question was explored around this issue of brother relationships outside the family. Two types of relationships were inves- tigated: 1) surrogate brothers; and 2) the social meaning associated with the term 'brother', as expressed by member- ship in fraternal organizations. The questions posed to the subjects were: "Were there, and are there presently, persons in your life who have been or still are like a brother to you?" What is your relationship with them like?" "What is your understanding of "brotherhood" outside the family. Is there in your mind a social meaning to the term 'brother'? "Do you belong to any 'brotherhood' type of organiza- tions? Why did you join, and what do you get from being a member?" The rationale behind exploring this question within a study Of the brother role within families was twofold: 1) are there aspects Of a brother's family role which carry over into specific social relationships and situations? and 2) if differences exist between the 'family meaning' and 158 'social meaning' then perhaps this information could help to clarify the specific family meaning and role of brothers. There was no intent to 'prove' any particular connection between family and non-family brother relationships nor was any particular hypothesis formulated. Wm Eight of the 13 brothers interviewed responded that there were men in their lives who were 'like a brother' to them. These surrogate brother relationships had their ori- gins in childhood and adolescence. None had developed in the adult years. Except for the Williams brothers the relationships to surrogate brothers were of an individual nature. With the Williams an Older cousin who spent a lot Of time in their home as a child was like a brother to all of them. Each. however. developed a surrogate relationship with him at different times. Blaine, the oldest, said that it was through this cousin that he discovered how important being a brother was, since his cousin had no siblings of his own. The cousin's need for a brother type relationship evoked a response of brotherliness from the Williams bro- thers. This response to be a 'brother' to another in need of such a relationship also characterized Joel Raymond's deve- lopment of a surrogate brother relationship. When a close friend's brother died in an accident Joel "felt he [the friend] needed me to be his brother". Joel described this person as a "kind of another self; he acts just like me." 159 What emerged from such a statement was the kind of identifi- cation seen in blood brother relationships reviewed in Chapter IV. Surrogate brother relationships were characterized as: "close", but "not as close as a brother", and as "equal" not having a hierarchical element of Older or younger brothers. The surrogate brothers spoken of appeared to provide a safe relationship for companionship, trust and sharing devoid of possible sibling rivalry and entanglements. AlthOugh "not as close as a real brother", the surrogate brother relation- ship was definitely an emotional bond that continued to exist for many years and in spite of prolonged times of no contact or great distances. As with their own siblings the brothers have created lasting bonds with their surrogate brothers. These bonds were not ones of 'blood' but ones of shared life experience of a meaningful nature. The expec- tation and/or obligation of "being there when needed was not mentioned in connection with surrogate brothers. In this regard the surrogate bond may be more in the order of friendship which is voluntary and usually unencumbered by a sense of obligation. As already stated not all of the brothers had formed surrogate brother relationships. NO one factor appeared to separate those who did and those who didn't. Constellation type did not appear to be a factor, nor did sibling posi- tion. Considering the individuals involved it could be hypothesized. that it was any of the following or a combina- 160 tion of them: shy personality, rigid attitude about 'blood being thicker than water', or being more enmeshed with a blood brother. These factors were found to be central among those brothers who did not report ever having a surrogate brother relationship. Any one of these could impede the formation of surrogate brother relationships which do involve considerable time, energy and commitment. An alter- native explanation could be that in light of the two exam- ples of a "need to have a brother" type relationship (see above pp.143-145) it could be hypothesized that when the brother role relationship is filled by a blood brother no "need" is felt to establish surrogate relationships. Where such a need is not filled it may be a motivation to develop such relationships. As James W. stated: "If someone only had sisters or no brother I think they would have a pretty big need to have a pretty close male friend." Of the five brothers reporting no surrogate brother relationships each had a very close relationship with one of his brothers. Sisters were also asked about surrogate brother rela- tionships. Five of the 6 sisters have had or still have such relationships. There was a definite difference in what these relationships have meant to them than for their bro- thers. The sisters spoke of their surrogate brothers as men they could "really talk with", persons who "listen and understand", and with whom they can experience "intimacy of sharing without sexual involvement." What came through was that the men with whom these sisters developed surrogate 161 relationships appeared to possess personality qualities enabling them, as Pleck (1975) encouraged, to be intimate and emotionally responsive with others. Although not studied directly the marriage histories of those sisters who were most vocal about surrogate brother relationships revealed some interesting data worthy of fur- ther research. Of the five sisters reporting positive ex- periences of surrogate brother relationships two have been divorced and remarried, and one was experiencing marital difficulties at the time of the interviews. One of the divorced/remarried sisters. and the one experiencing marital difficUIties, were the strongest in their statements about surrogate brothers. These few cases raise some interesting questions for future research: 1) given such positive male (surrogate brother) relationships prior to marriage, why does the marital relationship not work out or experience serious difficulties? 2) Are the type of men these sisters married similar to or different from the males with whom they shared a surrogate brother relationship? and 3) DO highly positive surrogate brother relationships create expectations of what men are capable of in a relationship. and if so, when husbands do not meet such expectations for "intimacy and sharing" does disatisfaction occur for the sister? In light of a high divorce rate and the frequency of women seeking counseling with complaints of husbands who are not understanding or are able to share their feelings. research into the area of surrogate brother relationships 162 could be fruitful. S M ' ' The majority of the siblings were able to recognize that there was a social, extra-familial meaning to the term 'brother'. Their responses were categorized into three groupings: 1) personal; 2) universal; and 3) negative. On a personal level 'brother' meant: "camaraderie". "some kind of close relationship", "some kind of intimacy", a "special friendship" involving "caring and sharing" with another human being, and "being able to work together helping each other." One group of siblings viewed the term 'brother' in a universal dimension. The term expressed "equality". "uni- ty and universal brotherhood", a "recognition Of our common humanity", and "an attempt to become like brothers." There was mentioned the dynamic of being united in a cause as en- gendering a sense of brotherhood. One sibling group could not relate to a social dimension of 'brother'. For them there was no meaning of the term beyond the family - "it doesn't apply out side the family"; "it's special to family only." One possible expression of the social dimension of brotherhood is membership in a fraternal organization. Brothers and their fathers were asked if they belonged or had belonged to such groups. Of the 17 males interviewed only 4 currently held mem bership in a fraternal organiza- tion, and of these 4 only one was active. Three formerly 163 belonged to the Elks or the Masons, and 10 had never belonged or had any desire to join a brotherhood organiza- tion. It was a fairly strong consensus, based on personal ex- perience and common knowledge, that men join brotherhood or- ganizations in order to socialize, and as far as the Elks were concerned, to make business contacts. A certain amount of peer and/or community pressure to belong to various fraternal organizations was reported by 5 of the brothers and 1 father. Although the social and business opportunities were the most mentioned reasons for joining, about one half of those interviewed recognized that for a small minority of the membership more meaningful reasons probably existed for belonging. These reasons included: companionship and being involved in charitable projects. As Ivan T. said: "it's possible that some join for fraternity, for closeness." His brother, Doug, added that from his experience: "the best thing about it (the Elks) was that the older men have a place to go for companionship and socializing. Those who hang around a lot have more of the sense of brotherhood." James W. whose father is currently President Of an inter- national brotherhood organization, and is a member of sev- eral fraternal organizations, noted that: "For some who belong they do look for friends and some- thing Of a brother relationship. If someone had only sisters or no brothers I think they would have a pretty big need to have a pretty close male friend. However, sports is probably a better place to get to know people with similar interest." 164 Not one of the men interviewed spoke of any need on his part to belong to a fraternal organization. Family back- ground did seem to influence attitudes toward brotherhood organizations and membership consideration. Two cases stand out in this regard: 1) Tom W. and, 2) the Vitale brothers. Tom W. as his family history demonstrated was the only male subject to grow up in a broken home situation which included time in an orphanage. Of the males interviewed he was the only active member of a brotherhood. In fact Tom belongs to three organizations and was active to some degree in each. He was President of one of them. He found and en- joyed a certain camaraderie within these groups. It may be that his belonging and activity represents the fulfillment of some unconscious need for brother relationships unreal- ized in childhood experience. The second case represented a negative attitude toward brotherhood organizations. The Vitale brothers ("a notch above") take a dim view of brotherhood organizations. There was no need for belonging to any when you have your own family group. "Men join because of boredom with their families; it's an escape mechanism." For a family with a more insular view and a more emotionally enmeshed existence, brotherhood organizations appeared as superfluous. Summers: The exploration of the social meaning of the term 'bro- ther' through a consideration of surrogate brother relation- ships and membership in brotherhood organizations was 165 pursued with the intent of the data possibly shedding addi- tional light on the role of a brother in the family. The data on surrogate brother relationships came the closest to being helpful in this intent. As was discovered surrogate brother relationships were characterized by closeness, equa- lity, emotional bondedness and a lasting quality. Sur- rogate brothers were spoken of with warmth and meaning. For sisters such relationships provided intimate male friend- ships without sexual involvement. The one descriptive phrase which was lacking with reference to surrogate bro- thers that was strongly present with reference to one's blood brothers was "being there when needed." Among blood brothers this appeared to be the one expectation above all others which might be said to separate the 'family' meaning' Of brother from the 'extra-familial' meaning. The 'social' meaning of the term 'brother' was des- cribed as some kind of close relationship (which had the quality of a close and intimate friendship marked by equali- ty and commonality. Membership in a brotherhood organization was not prevalent among the study's subjects and appeared to have more to do with a social and business need than a need for brotherhood or a need to express brotherhood in the social sphere. This was true except in one case where the subject was quite active. His family background showed the lack of a close brother relationship. Perhaps a larger study of the family histories of very active members Of fraternal organizations might provide the data to pursue the question. 166 CHAPTER VII RESULTS OF RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS In addition to the interview guides two quantitative research instruments were used in the collection of data. These were the Personality Attributes Questionnaire (FAQ) and the Adult Brother Scale (ABS). The present chapter discusses the findings from these two instruments and what the findings contribute to the research questions. Wm W The Personality Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ) was used in two ways in this study: 1) as a measure of instrumental and expressive personality traits for all members of the family; and 2) as a measure which could possibly indicate satisfaction with interpersonal relationships. Comparisons were made among family members, and in the case of the brothers in each family, scores were compared with interview data concerning their personality. Certain questions guided the comparison of scores among brothers: 1) do brothers who score high on the M scale describe themselves and are they 167 described by other family members in highly instrumental or masculine terms? and 2) do brothers who score high on the F scale or high on both the M and F describe themselves and are they described by other family members in more expres- sive/feminine and/or androgynous terms? Table 7.1 Scheme for Classifying Individuals on Masculinity and Femininity Scores by a Median Split(1) MASCULINITY Above Median Below Median Above Median ANDROGYNOUS FEMININE FEMININITY Below Median MASCULINE UNDIFFERENTIATED (1)Source: Spence and Helmreich. 1978. p.35. Median on M scale Median on F scale 20 22 Using Spence and Helmriech's (1978) schema for organi- zing the PAQ data (see Table 7.1 ) subjects were assigned to one of four categories: Androgynous, Feminine, Masculine or Undifferentiated. These categories were described in Chap- ter II. Assignment to a category was based on whether an individual's scores on the M and F scales fell above or below the median score for the sample of five families. Scores from all family members were used to OOmpute the median. According to Spence and Helmreich (1978): 168 When relatively small samples are drawn. some variation in the sample median and the resultant categorical dis- tribution is to be expected. One solution, of course. is to recompute the median splits for each sample (assuming it consists of both sexes), particularly if the sample is drawn from a unique population, and to make the categorization according to an ad hoc norm. (p.37) The M scale median was 20; the F scale median was 22 and the M-F scale median was 18. The median scores obtained for subjects closely compared with the reported median score in Spence and Helmreich (1978) for college students: M=21. F=23 and M-F=15. The raw Self and Other Family Mean PAQ scores for all brothers (n=13) on all three scales are presented in Table 7.2. Using the categorization scheme of Spence and Helmreich brothers were categorized as being either Androgynous (AND). Feminine (FEM), Masculine (MASC) or Undifferentiated (UND), Only the scores on the M scale and the F scale were used in determination of the category to which each brother was assigned. Those scoring above the median on both the M and F scales were categorized as Androgynous; those with scores above the median on the M scale and below the median on the F scale were categorized as Masculine; those above the median on the F scale and below the median on the M scale were categorized as Feminine; and those scoring below the median on both the M and F scales were categorized as 169 Table 7.2 Personality Attributes Questionnaire Self and Other Family Members Mean Raw Scores Brothers Only (N=13) Name Scale Self Score Family Mean Score Tomourien Jim M-F 19 18 M 21 22 F 21 23 John M-F 13 15 M 21 19 F 13 21 Doug M-F 17 19 M 17 19 F 20 20 Williams Blaine M-F 10 14 M 19 20 F 19 15 John M-F 18 15 M 21 23 F 25 25 James M-F 17 18 M 22 21 F 29 20 Stevens Todd M-F 18 14 M 10 14 F 27 21 Al M-F 25 20 M 25 25 F 29 22 Dennis M-F 12 14 M 17 20 F 14 19 Vitale Monk M-F 15 16 M 23 19 F 24 17 Bob M-F 15 16 M 23 23 F 21 23 Paul M-F 9 20 M 25 23 F 24 24 Richmond Steve M-F 22 19 M 23 22 F 24 17 170 Undifferentiated. Brothers received two categorization designations based on a Self score and a Other Family Mean score (see Table 7.3). Only the M and F scales were used in determining the personality category following the scheme explanation of Spence and Helmreich (1978. p.35). Table 7.3 Classification of Brothers' Personality from the Personality Attributes Questionnaire(1) by Brothers Themselves and by Other Family Members (N=13) M and F Scale PAQ M and F Scale Family Self Scores(2) Categorization(3) Family Scores M F Self Family M F Williams Blaine 19 19 UND MASC 20 15 John 21 25 AND AND 23 25 James 22 29 AND MASC 21 20 Stevens Todd 10 27 FEM UND 14 21 Al 25 29 AND AND 25 22 Dennis 17 14 UND UND 20 19 Tomourien ‘ Jim 21 21 MASC AND 22 23 John 21 13 MASC UND 19 21 Doug 17 20 UND UND 19 20 Vitale Monk 23 24 AND UND 19 17 Bob 23 21 - MASC AND 23 23 Paul 25 24 AND AND 23 24 Richmond Steve 23 24 AND MASC 22 17 1 Spence and Helmreich. 1978. 2 Median Scores - M=20. F=22 3 Above median on M & F scales = Androgynous Above median on M & Below on F : Masculine Above median on F & Below on M = Feminine Below median on M & F scales Undifferentiated 171 Considering solely the classification category that each subject was assigned to there was only a 38% agreement between Self and Other scores. Looking at the results in Table 7.3 each family of brothers presented different pat- terns Of responses on the PAQ. The widest range of scores and differences were evident among the Stevens brothers. Each fell definitively into a separate category. The nar- rowest range of scores was among the Vitale brothers. For the difference of one point on the F scale for Bob all 3 brothers would have been categorized as Androgynous. An equal number of brothers with and without sisters were categorized as Androgynous or Feminine. Differences between Self and Other Family Member scores. for the most part, were significant. This means that a difference of 1 or 2 points would not have brought the Self and Other categorizations into agreement. How one saw himself and how others in the family saw him were diver- gent in 62% of the cases. This lack of agreement can only partially be explained by comparing the Self and Family Scores on the F Scale where the largest differnences were evident. The lower F Scale scores by family members of their brothers seemed to indicate that they saw their bro- thers in more masculine terms, and thus possibly reflecting a male stereotype bias. The data on the PAQ led to the following conclusions: 1) the majority (n=9) of the brothers were either Androgy- nous (n=6) or Masculine (n=3) according to Self reported 172 scores; 2) the brothers, as a total group were more Androgy- nous than any other one personality category. It did not make any difference on this point if the brother did or did not have a sister. As stated earlier two questions guided the comparison of the PAQ scores among brothers. The first question was: did brothers who scored high on the M scale describe them- selves and were they described by other family members in highly instrumental or masculine terms? Question 2 asked: did brothers who scored high on both the M and F scales describe themselves and were they described by other family members in androgynous and/or feminine/expressive terms? Table 7.4 was constructed to facilitate the comparison and help answer the questions. Table 7.4 PAQ - Personality Type Designations Brothers Only ' Name ' Self Other Interview Data Blaine Und Masc Masc John And And And James And Masc And Monk And Und Masc Bob Masc And And Paul And And Masc Todd Fem Und Fem Al And And And Dennis Und Masc Und Jim Masc And And John Masc Und Masc Doug Und Und Und Joel And Masc And 173 As mentioned above there was only a 381 agreement between Self and Other Family Members mean scores on the PAQ. Both questions posed were answered in the negative. Only three brothers were categorized uniformly by Self, Other Family Members, and by description from the Interview Data--John W., Al 8., and Doug T. Such consensus stood out among so much divergence. Similarities among these 'three brothers were explored. All three were outgoing and popu- lar. They were all middle brothers. John and A1 stood out as "instigators" of activity in their families. Doug gave the impression of still searching for his own self and this was reflected in the "Undifferentiated" designation. Three brothers described themselves in highly masculine terms, and of these none were described as such by the family mean. and only one was described as Masculine ac- cording to the interview data. Of the six brothers who described themselves as Androgynous three were described as such by the family scores. Six brothers who scored them- selves high on both the M and F Scales (Androgynous) were described variously by family members. Whether or not the PAQ can be used to possibly measure satisfaction in interpersonal relationships is an open ques- tion. Pleck (1975) implicitly advanced the proposition that males who were more capable of handling intimacy and the sharing of feelings, would, in turn, possess good interper- sonal skills. According to Spence and Helmreich (1979) per- sons who evidence an Androgynous personality type possess a 174 good balance of instrumental and expressive traits. These persons are considered to be more flexible in their role performance, and behaviors usually attributed to the op- posite sex are part of their role behavior. If flexibility in role behavior could be assumed to be linked to satisfac- tion in interpersonal relationships then it would be ex- pected that those brothers who were categorized as androgy- nous should find interpersonal relationships more satis- fying. All of the brothers interviewed reported satisfac- tion in relationships with friends, and most had one or two good friends with whom they shared time, activities and their thoughts. All but two brothers got along quite well or fairly well with one another. Based on the data gathered in this study the overall picture was one of satisfaction with interpersonal relationships. There was the assumption implicit in this conclusion that the brothers reported their relationships accurately. In this study six of the 13 brothers were categorized as Androgynous and of these 5 were identified as enjoying interpersonal relationships. Thus any direct or strong rela- tionship between rating Self as Androgynous on the PAQ and having satisfaction in interpersonal relationships cannot be concluded based on the data. Summau The PAQ yielded limited information in helping to ad- dress the overall research problem of the adult brother role. The instrument enabled a personality designation for 175 each brother to be made. Considerable divergence (62%) existed between Self and Other Family member mean scores. Having an Androgynous and/or Feminine personality had little to do with whether a brother had an older. younger, or no sister at all. Being Androgynous may have enabled brothers to be more flexible in their role enactment to meet both physical and emotional needs of their siblings. This possi- bility was not precisely tested. An overall assessment of the behaviors engaged in by those brothers who were Androgy- nous and/or Feminine appeared, however, to indicate greater instrumental and expressive role flexibility. W The Adult Brother Scale (ABS) was described fully in Chapter II. pp.42-43). It is reproduced in Appendix I. The ABS included five items: Involvement, Support/Encouragement, Trust/Intimacy, Bonding/Closeness, and Respect. Subjects were asked to score a variety of persons on each scale giving them a score from 1 to 10 points. Only the scores for and by siblings were used in the analysis. Although subjects were requested to indicate a value on each item for a variety of relationships other than their siblings, the request was not followed consistently and the amount of missing data was too great for any consideration of compar- ing scores obtained by brothers to scores obtained by a variety of other relationships. Complete data was obtained on all siblings. Using the brothers raw scores on each 176 item, averaged scores for each dyadic relationship were computed for analysis (see Tables 7.5 thru 7.14). In the analysis of the data thus far it has become evident that each family was unique and needed to be ana- lyzed separately. The data from the ABS was also analyzed separately for each family of brothers focusing on the dyadic relationships and the dynamics encountered in the Scale. The data on the dyadic relationships between broth- ers and sisters was also analyzed in order to accomplish comparisons between brothers and sisters. The analysis of the ABS results followed three avenues of pursuit: 1) Are the dynamics implicit within the ABS scores compatible or complementary to the dynamics described in the Interview Data, especially the data discussed on "Identification" earlier in ChapterIV? 2) Are the results of the ABS clear enough and related closely enough to the Interview Data to propose that the ABS be used in a wider study to measure brother/brother and brother/sister relationships without the time and expense of interviewing? 3) In general which Of the five characteristics was more likely to be associated with brothers. Below are the Tables and discussion of the results on the Adult Brother Scale. Two tables per family are presented. The first of the two tables contains the raw scores for each sibling. The second table presents the averaged dyadic scores on each item computed for each sibling pair, and the total averaged points for each dyadic relationship. 177 Hillifims, The results on the ABS for the Williams brothers (see Tables 7.5 and 7.6) reflected very well the interview data on the relationship among these brothers. Table 7.5 Raw Scores on Each Item of the Adult Brother Scale for the Williams Brothers Blaine John James I - 5 5 8/5 - 7 5 Blaine T/I - 8 7 B/C - 9 8 R - 1O 10 I 8 - 9 S/E 9 - 9 John T/I 7 - 8 B/C 8 - 9 R 10 - 10 I 6 8 - 8/5 5 7 - James T/I 5 7 - B/C 6 9 - R 8 9 - Ledger: I = Involvement 8/5 = Support/Encouragement T/I = Trust/Intimacy B/C = Bonding/Closeness R = Respect The ABS results presented in Table 7.5 reflected the follow- ing dynamics: 1) a closer and more involved relationship between John and James; 2) a moderate amount of involve- ment. and support/encouragement by James and John of Blaine; 3) a rather high level of bonding/closeness among the three brothers, although James felt a closer bonding with John 178 than with Blaine; R) a greater degree of support for James from John than from Blaine, 5) a high level of respect for one another, 6) an inequality in the perceived support between Blaine and John, 7) a mutual level of trust/intimacy between Blaine and John, and 8) a much higher level of trust/intimacy between James and John than between James and Blaine. These results were very compatible with the interview data. They make clear the closer relationship of John and James, and that the involvement of these two brothers in Blaine's life is far less than in each other's. Table 7.6 Averaged Scores and Total Averaged Points on the Adult Brother Scale for Each Dyadic Brother Relationship Williams Brothers Dyadic Relationships Scale Blaine John James Items John James Blaine I 605 805 505 S/E 8.0 8.0 5.0 T/I 7.5 7.5 6.0 B/C 8.5 9.0 7.0 R 10.0 9.5 9.0 Total Avg Points “0.5 “2.5 32.5 Ledger: I = Involvement S/E = Support/Encouragement T/I = Trust/Intimacy B/C : Bonding/Closeness R = Respect 179 The averaged dyadic scores and total averaged points strongly highlight the differences in the relationships among the Williams brothers. The total averaged points clearly showed: 1) the closer, more involved and supportive relationship between John and James; and 2) the almost equal relationship that John has with both of his brothers‘ with the exception that he was far more involved with James than with Blaine. Vitale, The ABS results for the Vitale brothers are presented in Table 7.7 and 7.8. Table 7.7 Raw Scores on Each Item on the Adult Brother Scale for the Vitale Siblings Monk Bob Paul Nancy I - 1 3 1 S/E - 1 1 1 Monk T/I - 1 5 5 BIG - 1 S 8 R - 1 5 9 I 3 - 8 7 S/E 2 - 6 6 Bob T/I 1 - 9 8 B/C 3 - 10 8 R u - 6 7 I 8 9 - 3 S/E 9 9 - 6 Paul T/I 9 9 - 9 B/C 9 9 - 6 R 9 9 - 8 I 6 8 7 - S/E 8 9 8 - Nancy T/I 7 7 7 - B/C 10 10 10 - R 8 8 8 - 180 The results as presented in Table 7.7 reflected the follow- ing dynamics: 1) the poor relationship between Monk and Bob; 2) the close and mutual relationship between Bob and Paul; 3) an unequal perspective on on their relationship by Monk and Paul; a) an almost equal regard for all her brother by Nancy; and 5) the higher level of involvement of Bob with his sister. Some incompatibilities emerged between the ABS and the interview data. Given the strong relationship be- tween Bob and Paul, and especially how Bob spoke of Paul, one would have expected a higher level of respect to exist between them. However, Bob gave Paul only a value of 6 on "Respect", and also a 6 on the Support/Encouragement item. These scores were equal to those he gave to his sister. Based on Monk's written data about his relationship with Paul it was expected that his scores would be on the upper end of the scale. This was not the case on the ABS. The low scores he gave to Paul seemed inconsistent with other data. The divergence between Paul's scores and Monk's was also quite pronouned. It was not possible to discover reasons for this since Monk chose not to be personally interviewed. Based soley on Paul's data this discrepancy presented a problematical situation. Also given the amount of contact between Monk and Paul it is surprising that Monk regarded his sister as being closer and more respectful of him than he regarded Paul as being. 181 Table 7.8 Averaged Scores and Total Averaged Points on the Adult Brother Scale for Each Dyadic Brother and Brother/Sister Relationship Vitales Dyadic Relationships Scale Monk Monk Bob Monk Bob Paul Items Bob Paul Paul Nancy Nancy Nancy I 2.0 5.5 8.5 3.5 7.5 5.0 S/E 1.5 5.0 7.5 N.5 7.5 7.0 T/I 1.0 5.0 9.0 6.0 7.5 8.0 B/C 2.0 7.0 9.5 7.5 9.0 8.0 R 2.5 7.0 7.5 6.5 7.5 8.0 Total Avg. Points 9.0 31.5 N2.0 28.0 39.0 36.0 Ledger: I = Involvement S/E = Support/Encouragement T/I = Trust/Intimacy B/C = Bonding/Closeness R = Respect Both the total averaged points and the averaged scores as presented in Table 7.8 dramatically highlighted the dif- ferences in the relationships between Monk and Paul, and between Monk and Bob, and between Bob and Paul. The total averaged points were 9.0, 31.5 and 42.0 respectively. The strongest relationship was that between Bob and Paul, and this came through in the interview data. Involvement and Trust/Intimacy were the highest between Bob and Paul. Stgxgnsg The results on the ABS for the Stevens bro- thers are presented in Tables 7.9 and 7.10. 182 Table 7.9 Raw Scores on Each Item on the Adult Brother Scale for the Stevens Siblings Helen Todd Al Dennis S/E Helen T/I B/C | I | I I _s.‘ COQNO‘ _s—n ..s-s COQNO‘ GJUTO‘O‘U'I coco-10 S/E Todd T/I B/C I S/E Al T/I B/C @0030 NO‘O‘U‘IO Illll .l :U _s S/E Dennis T/I B/C cu. OQCDO‘N 03:00: mO‘NNO‘ a—D (13030300 (DOC-20‘ so —I \OGnOQ-t lllll The following dynamics emerged from the ABS data as presen- ted in Table 7.9 for the Stevens siblings: 1) an equal regard by Helen of her relationships with her brothers on all items, although there is a lack of reciprocity; 2) a slightly greater involvement, support/encouragement and trust/intimacy by Todd with his sister than with either of his brothers; and 3) the relationship between A1 and his brothers was reflected in the results-~being away most of the time, low involvement and a more or less low bonding/ closeness would be .expected. Divergencies were quite 183 evident in the scores, some more surprising than others. Todd's low score on Respect for Dennis was surprising since they live together and reported a fairly high regard for each other. The divergence in scores between Todd and Dennis on Trust/Intimacy and Bonding/Closeness was also not consistent with the interview data. Dennis, more than any of his siblings, regarded the others higher on the Scale, especially on the items of Involvement, and Trust/ Intimacy. More than anything else the ABS results for this sibling group revealed the importance of obtaining everyone's sub- jective perspective in order to understand the dynamics. Table 7.10 Averaged Scores and Total Averaged Points on the Adult Brother Scale for Each Dyadic Brother Relationship Stevens Dyadic Relationships Scale Todd Todd Al Todd Al Dennis Items Al Dennis Dennis Helen Helen Helen I 5.5 7.5 5.0 6.0 5.0 6.5 S/E 5.0 5.5 5.5 7.0 6.5 6.5 T/I 8.0 7.0 9.5 7.5 9.0 8.0 B/C 5.5 7.0 7.0 8.0 7.0 8.5 R 8.0 7.5 8.5 9.0 10.0 10.0 Total Avg. Points 32.0 3H.5 35.5 37.5 37.5 39.5 Ledger: I = Involvement S/E = Support/Encouragement T/I = Trust/Intimacy B/C = Bonding/Closeness R = Respect 184 The averaged dyadic scores and total averaged points for the Stevens siblings as presented in Table 7.10 present a picture which is misleading when considered in relation- ship to the interview data. Solely considering the aver- aged points one would assume a greater relationship existed between the brothers and sister than between the brothers. The scores misrepresent the reality to a certain extent. As pointed out above in Table 7.9 Helen scored her brothers equally and generally high but it was not reciprocal. Her high scores raised the total averaged points in her favor. Taking this into consideration what emerges is a situation of a fair equality of relationship among all the relation- ships. The higher involvement between Todd and Dennis was understandable given the fact that they lived together. Tomguzien4 The ABS results for the Tomourien brothers were the most reflective of the dynamics evident from the interview data. The results are presented in Tables 7.11 and 7.12. Item analysis as presented in Table 7.11 showed, in general, the following dynamics: 1) almost identical scores between Jim and Ivan indicating a high level of mutuality and involvement in their relationship; 2) a more exclusive relationship by Ivan with his brothers with scores indica- tive that not much goes on between him and his sisters; 3) the closer relationship of Doug with Ivan and Toni (his closest siblings) than with Jim and Joan with 'whom there have been conflicts; 4) a preference by Joan for relation- ships with Jim and Toni although on the items Involvement, 185 Support/Encouragement she rates her brothers and sister very low. Table 7.11 Raw Scores on Each Item on the Adult Brother Scale for the Tomourien Siblings Jim Joan Ivan Doug Toni S/E Jim T/I B/C II I II ~rqcn~nm I S/E Joan T/I B/C (”UNION“) xoxooooooo S/E Ivan T/I B/C (”004$ -I=U'|NNN m'QChODU'i S/E Doug T/I B/C O‘NNNO‘ U'lO‘UTU'l-B cod-drum NO‘U‘IO‘J: S/E Toni T/I B/C H \ONGJCDU'I U‘OU‘IO‘U'I @0006) 030wa QCDOOO‘ zmzmz WWNNW \O'QQNUI U'I‘QO‘QCD cocoon I I I I I This reflects her more intense involvement with friends over siblings. Specific divergencies were evident _among the value scores: a) 0n items Trust/Intimacy, Bonding/Closeness and Respect, Doug and Ivan who maintain a very active 186 relationship did not feel as intensely about it. b) There was a clear difference in level of respect between Jim and Doug. c) Toni, the youngest, scored all of her siblings higher than she herself was ranked by them on all items-this may be a question of the youngest imputing more prestige to the older siblings than vice-versa. d) It was surprising that Doug's ranking of Toni was not higher given his admira- tion of her and his valuing of their relationship. e) Joan's and Doug's scores reflect their present distancing and disagreements with each other. Table 7.12 Averaged Scores and Total Averaged Points on the Adult Brother Scale for Each Dyadic Brother Relationship Tomourien Dyadic Relationships Scale Jim Jim Ivan Jim Jim Ivan Ivan Doug Doug Items Ivan Doug Doug Joan Toni Joan Toni Joan Toni I 8.0 5.0 8.0 4.0 4.5 2.5 4.5 3.0 7.0 S/E 8.5 7.0 7.0 4.5 7.0 2.0 6.0 3.5 8.0 T/I 8.5 5.5 7.5 6.5 6.5 2.5 6.5 3.0 8.0 B/C 9.0 6.5 8.0 6.5 6.5 4.0 6.5 5.0 8.0 R 8.5 6.5 6.5 7.5 8.0 5.5 7.0 4.0 7.5 Tot.Avg. Pts 42.5 30.5 37.0 29.0 32.5 16.5 30.5 18.5 38.5 Ledger: I = Involvement S/E = Support/Encouragement T/I = Trust/Intimacy B/C = Bonding/Closeness R = Respect The results for the Tomourien siblings. as presented in Table 7.12, supported the individual findings as discussed in Table 7.11. The averaged dyadic scores and total 187 averaged points highlight the stronger and closer relation- ships between Jim and Ivan, Ivan and Doug, and Doug and Toni. This was consistent with the interview data. The weaker relationships between Joan and Doug, and Ivan and Joan were very evident in these results. The closer the siblings were to each other the higher the total averaged points. Richmond, The ABS results for the Richmond siblings are presented in Tables 7.13 and 7.14. Table 7.13 Raw Scores on Each Item on the Adult Brother Scale for the Richmond Siblings Carol Dawn Joel I - 9 6 S/E - 5 3 Carol T/I - 6 4 B/C - 10 10 R - 10 10 I 10 - 5 S/E 8 - 5 Dawn III 8 - 5 BIG 10 - 8 R 10 - 10 I 7 7 - S/E 8 8 - Joel III 9 9 - B/C 9 9 - R 9 9 - Two dynamics were reflected in the results as presented in Table 7.13 which were not encountered in the other sibling constellations: 1) a definite divergence on the part 188 of the sisters between the information obtained in the interviews and on the ABS about their brother; and 2) the present relationship overshadowing the past. Examining Table 7.13 the following picture was obtained: 1) there is a lack of congruence between the way Joel perceived his relationship with his sisters and their perspective of their relationship with him; 2) a closer relationship between Carol and Dawn than between Joel and either of his sisters; 3) a very high bondedness and respect which was mutual among all three siblings. What was not reflected in the ABS results was the historical variable. This was most evident within this constellation because of the recent past con- flict and rivalry between the sisters. At present the past, at least on the ABS, appears forgotten. The close, involved, trusting relationship that existed between Joel and Dawn prior to Dawn's second marriage was not reflected in Dawn's scores of Joel. Based on interview data it was expected that the values ascribed to one anoth- er would have been more equal, and that Joel and Dawn's mutual relationship would be evident. As it was, the pic- ture one got was of a close sister relationship and a bro- ther who was only moderately regarded by his sisters. This seemed contrary to interview data. 189 Table 7.14 Averaged Scores by Dyads and Total Averaged Points on the Adult Brother Scale for Each Dyadic Brother/Sister Relationship Richmonds Dyadic Relationships Scale Joel Joel Items Carol Dawn I 6.5 6.0 S/E 5.5 6.5 T/I 6.5 7.0 B/C 9.5 8.5 R 9.5 9.5 Total Avg. Points 37.5 37.5 Ledger: I = Involvement S/E = Support/Encouragement T/I = Trust/Intimacy B/C = Bonding/Closeness R = Respect The results for the Richmonds as contained in Table 7.14 present a situation of equality of relationship between Joel and his sisters. Very little difference is noted in the dyadic means, and the total averaged points are equal. Although this may well reflect the present situation it has only existed for about 2 years. Prior to this the expected results on a scale such as this would have been much differ- ent. The relationship between Joel and Dawn would most likely have been reflected by much higher scores. 190 Conclusion Three questions were proposed at the beginning of this section. The results of the ABS were analyzed according to each question. The first question asked: are the dynamics implicit within the ABS scores compatible or complementary to the dynamics described in the interview data, especially the discussion on "Identification" 2 It can be concluded that, for the most part, the dynamics implicit within the ABS scores were representative of the relationship dynamics among the siblings in each family. Question #2 asked: are the results clear enough and related closely enough to the interview data to propose that the ABS be used in a wider study to assess brother/brother and brother/sister relationships without going through the process of inter- viewing? A qualified positive response is indicated based on the results and method of analysis. First, the results were clear enough and reflective of the present dynamics among the siblings, but the instrument, as now constructed, was not able to obtain an historical perspective on the relationships. This deficit could be compensated for by asking for value scores to be given for various points along the lifespan. Second, the analysis was not independently accomplished in that the person who did the interviewing also did the ABS analysis without the benefit of a second reviewer of the ABS data. Undoubtedly a certain_bias and/or already conceived opinion about the relationships was pre- sent prior to analyzing the ABS. Independent usage of the / 191 instrument, foregoing interviewing of subjects. should await a second independent analysis of the data. In future re- search, using this instrument, a quasiexperimental design could be followed. The same subjects could be administered the ABS by two independent interviewers. Interviewer A would administer only the ABS. Interviewer B would adminis- ter the ABS and conduct an interview with each sibling. The data obtained from both procedures would then be analyzed separately and then compared. The last question of interest was: "in general which of the five items were more likely to be associated with brother relationships than with brother/sister relation- ships?" Tables 7.15 and 7.16 contain the data for the dis- cussion on this question. Table 7.15 Mean Scores for Items on the Adult Brother Scale - Brothers Only Scale Items Family Name I S/E T/I B/C R Williams 6.8 7.0 7.0 8.6 9.5 Stevens 6.0 5.8 8.1 7.6 8.6 Vitale 5.8 5.8 6.1 7.4 6.4 Tomourien 5.7 6.2 6.7 7.2 7.5 Richmond 5.5 4.0 4.5 9.0 10.0 Item Mean 6.0 5.8 6.5 8.0 8.4 Ledger: I = Involvement S/E = Support/Encouragement T/I = Trust/Intimacy B/C = Bonding/Closeness R = Respect 192 Table 7.16 Mean Scores for Items on the Adult Brother Scale - Brother and Sisters Scale Items Family Name I S/E T/I B/C R Williams - - - - Stevens 5.8 6.6 8.2 7.8 9.6 Vitale 5.3 6.3 7.1 8.1 7.3 Tomourien 4.3 5.2 5.5 6.0 6.6 Richmond 6.3 6.0 6.8 9.0 9.5 Item Mean 5.4 6.0 6.9 7.7 8.2 Ledger: I = Involvement S/E = Support/Encouragement T/I = Trust/Intimacy B/C = Bonding/Closeness R = Respect Based on the ABS item mean scores for brothers only, and for brothers and sisters no appreciable [1 point or more] difference existed on any one item. Mean scores for both brother and brother/sister relationships followed the same pattern. However, an examination of the individual family mean scores in both tables for the "Involvement" item points up one meaningful finding when considered in rela- tionship to the findings on expectations of brothers dis- cussed in chapter 5. It was found that brothers were expected "to be there when needed" thus indicating an expec- tation for involvement and some kind of support.’ The widest margin in Item Mean scores occurred on the Involvement item. Theoretically, items "I" and “S/E" would be closer to the 193 expectation of "being there when needed". The results on these two items could in future studies be used to possibly measure the fulfillment of the fundamental expectation of a brother. If a brother fulfilled this expectation it is most likely that he would also receive higher scores on the other three items-- T/I. BIG and R. In future research using this instrument it would be beneficial to obtain from the subjects a rank ordering of the items. Which items do they regard as most important in their relationship with their brothers? A systematic rank- ing procedure used over a series of studies would help to refine this instrument increasing its utility for analyzing sibling relationships. 194 CHAPTER VIII RESULTS OF RESEARCH PROPOSITIONS In Chapter II a number of research propositions were out lined. In addition to the research questions these were used as a means of organizing the data for analysis. Four of the propositions (#9 1.4.5 and 6) were previously deve- loped by Schvanveldt and Ihinger (1979) after their review of the litera ture on siblings. The remaining propositions were specifically developed for this study, some of which were designated as subpropositions of those developed by Schvaneveldt and Ihinger. Each proposition was considered independently for ana- lysis. A few of the propositions have a direct relationship to results already reported under the consideration of the five research questions in chapters 4 thru 7. In an effort to avoid duplication of data, the reader is referred back to the appropriate Chapter and page numbers. Chapter VIII was organized according to the major vari- ables and/or concepts contained within the propositions. The findings on each of the variables or concepts along with a restatement of the proposition or proposition is presen- ted. This is followed by a conclusion and a determination 195 as to whether the proposition should remain as stated or be reformulated. Note, Proposition #1 was formulated as: The degree of sibling affect in adult life that emerges from sibling interaction is influenced by the following variables: (1) sex, age, and spacing of siblings, (2) early childhood affect and (3) degree of family cohesiveness. It was a modified version of a proposition developed by Schvaneveldt and Ihinger (1979,p.463). Added to the proposition was "early childhood affect". "Family cohesiveness" was substi- tuted for "parental cohesiveness". Schvaneveldt and Ihinger after reviewing the findings on sibling interaction and affect noted that: “...to derive a theoretical proposition relating to de gree of affect to sib interaction, one must take into account structural aspects of the sib complex: age is a variable, for the expression of affect changes over time; sex is a variable, for females are socialized as more expressive; size is a variable, for siblings tend to interact with those sibs closest in age and sex to their own position; a parental coalition and solid front constitute a variable, for the degree of parental unity is hypothesized to affect sibling conflict which may or may not be related to degree of sibling affection"(p.463). Because of the number of variables involved in Proposition #1 as originally formulated it has been separated into separate propositions for the analysis. In addition to the variables already within the proposition three additional variables are considered in relationship to this proposi- tion and its subpropositions. These additional variables are: family activities, family traditions, and effect of marriage. 196 MW Bzgpgstign_113‘ The degree of sibling affect in adult life that emerges from sibling interaction is influenced by sex, age, and spacing of siblings. Siblings tend to interact with those sibs closest in age and sex to their own position (Schvaneveldt and Ihinger. 1979). The data supported this general finding. Brothers were closer to each other than they were to their sisters although there were exceptions. Williamfig The age differences among these brothers were significant enough for them to regard them as important relative to closeness and affect. "It was hard to relate to James because we were 7 years apart and when younger 7 years is a lot."(Blaine) However, from James's perspective he had been closer to Blaine when younger than he was at present: "When younger I was much closer to Blaine because we did more things together, even though we were 7 years part." As adults the closeness or affect has ‘shifted: "I'm more personal with John than with Blaine. Closer in age, and we've grown closer because we see each other more. John's more open than Blaine." (James) The major shifts in af- fect have occurred between Blaine and James. John reported that, except for the past 2 years he has felt equally close to both of his brothers. Being a middle brother the age differences were the least for him. litalgg Separation by an intervening sibling did not impede affectional bonds being developed between oldest and youngest brothers. This was the case within the Vitale 197 family between Monk and Paul (8 year difference). Although there was only a 3 year difference between Monk and Bob there was no close affec tion. "Monk and I were distant although only 3 years separated us. Paul and I were closer and there's a 5 year difference."(Bob) These brothers had little to do with their younger sister growing up. Not only were there large age differences (ranging from 5 to 12 years) but the factor of Nancy being female in an Italian household impeded affect development. Within this family it was the males who counted and had prestige. It was not important to have a close relationship with your sister. fitgygnfig Although not affectionately close during childhood and adolescence Todd and Helen Stevens grew closer in adulthood. Closeness was brought about by Helen's divorce after which Helen turned to Todd for support and companion- ship. Dennis in refer ring to his older sister said: "...she kind of got lost in the shuffle. There's a six year difference, not much to do with her. Don't remember her too much during childhood." Now as adults Dennis and Helen interact much more, according to Dennis. As among the Vitale brothers an intervening siblings did not impede the development of affectional bonds. "Even though Al is be- tween Todd and myself, it was Todd and I who were together more and had more common interests and friends."(Dennis) Todd echoed this when he said: "Dennis and .I are the closest--pretty similar, very sports oriented. not competi- tive like Al." Overall the Stevens siblings reflect close 198 affectional bonds between all the siblings, and they are not impeded by age, sex. or spacing. Tongugjgng The relationships of greatest affect were evident among those siblings closest in age. This was reflected well in the ABS results in Chapter 7. The closest relationships were between Jim and Ivan, Ivan and Doug, and Doug and Toni. With the exception of the relationship be- tween Doug and Toni the greater affect was between the brothers. Doug and Toni, the two youngest, have had a close and affectionate relationship from childhood through adult- hood: "Pretty close bond among us. especially between Doug and myself. We've gotten closer as we've gotten older."(Toni) Jim, the oldest. confirmed this: "Doug and Toni are closer to one another. Next to one another in age." It was different for Jim - "I'm not as close to my sisters as I am with my brothers. I can talk with my bro- thers easier than with my sisters. It extends the macho idea of the Greeks. Women aren't that big a deal, the men count." Age differences were found to inhibit affective relationships among some of the siblings in this family especially during childhood and adolescence. Joan, the oldest sister, reported: "I wanted to be close to Toni, especially at time of dad's death, but it didn't happen. There's an age difference of six years." Toni expressed the same reality: "Joan wouldn't let me hang around her when we were kids, age difference. And I never felt close to Jim because of the age spread (8 years)." For Toni it has been 199 only in the last 2 to 3 years that something of a closeness has been developing between herself and her two oldest siblings, Jim and Joan. 313nmgng, A closer cross-sex relationship existed with the Richmonds. It was Dawn and Joel who formed a strong coalition against the older sister. Their closeness was supported not only by age but by personality and identifica- tion. Conclusion, The data indicated that siblings closest in age. and of the same sex, were close as adults. This closeness emerged mainly out of their childhood experiences with each other. Also true was the finding that siblings separated by another sibling also experienced close, if not closer, relationships than siblings closest in age. nflhilfih92n_3£££££ W. Positive relationships between si blings in childhood will lead to positive sibling relationships in adulthood. According to Ross and Milgram (1982) most siblings in their study reported that closeness to their siblings chang- ed over their lifetime. "...during young and middle adult- hood participants seem to focus more on their spouses and children, and on relationships to one or a few particular siblings."(p.227) Data from this study's sibling partici- pants (ages 21-39) revealed definite changes in closeness over their lifetime. Siblings were able to distinguish three phases in their relationship: childhood, adolescence 200 and adulthood (beginning around age 20). ‘Eilligms, All three Williams brothers reported that they felt close to one another. However. over time certain dyadic relationships were more prominent and feelings of closeness stronger. During childhood the brothers were somewhat equally close participating in familiy activities and outside sports. During adolescence. surrounding the activity of skiing. Blaine and James said they got real close to one another around the time James was 13. The Vietnam war intervened and Blaine and James were separated for a time, never to resume the closeness they had known. As adults John and James felt closer. They saw one another almost everyday and were involved in sports activi- ties together. James explained the shift as: "Contact with Blaine is not too frequent because of our lives and activi- ties. I'm single, involved in sports and he isn't right now. I see John more because our offices are close by." Vitale, Childhood years were pleasant and close according to the Vitale brothers. Not until each began to go his own way did conflicts and resulting changes in close- ness occur. The dynamics underlying these changes were discussed in Chapter IV under the consideration of "indenti- fication". Paul, the youngest brother, reported that he "always felt close to both of (his) brothers." During childhood Monk and Bob got along well enough and felt close. but as adults they've "gone separate ways." "The interac- tions that we now have are when we are thrown to gether such 201 as at birthdays or holidays"(Monk V). The relationship between Bob and Paul was described as extremely close in adulthood but was not that way in child- hood. A shift occurred during adolescence after Monk (oldest) went out on his own. Bob and Paul seem to have then 'discovered' one another and have been 'alter egos' since. .Stgyens, During childhood these brothers experienced conflict over being different. "Competition on Al's part created difficulties. He would get physical and want to win. It was no fun playing with him - fights, stomping away"(Todd). This was true also for Dennis. The temper- ments of these brothers have al ready been discussed earlier explaining some of their conflict. During childhood and adolescence it was principally a close relationship between Todd and Dennis. There was an admiration of the "outgoing. assertive" middle brother but difficult to feel close to him. As adults the interactive dynamics have change most likely because of Al's being away from the home town. Space and time have allowed a new dynamic to occur and all three brothers feel quite close to one another, with Al learning to know his brothers all over again. Vacation trips and time well spent at home have helped develop a non-conflic- tual adult relationship for these brothers. Tomogrign‘_ Age and an "older brother" attitude com- bined to inhibit a real closeness from developing between Jim T. and his two brothers during childhood. "Didn't do 202 much with Jim, he was 4 years older"(Doug). "We got along well, but I resented Jim a bit. He shunned us while we were growing up. He was in a different age group"(Ivan). During childhood and adolescence it was Ivan and Doug who were the closest brothers. As adults the brothers seem to have come to experience one another differently. A common interest in the family property and politics have drawn Jim and Ivan closer than they've ever been. And, although Doug and Ivan were still close they've realized they can't work together on a job: "Working with Ivan is difficult for me; we just don't make it that way"(Doug). Bighmgng, Childhood years for Carol. Dawn and Joel were a mixture of playfulness, competition and some con- flict. The relationship between Carol and Joel has always been close accord ing to both of them. As children, Joel and Dawn did a lot of "fighting, wrestling, getting ground- ed." By the time they were in Junior High this behavior ceased and they became very close companions and confidants. The relationship between Carol and Dawn during the teen years was very conflictual and they were at odds. Rebel- liousness and fighting to be different seemed to be Dawn's goals. Her rejection of the "comparisons" made with Carol throughout childhood created conflict (see Proposition #7). Now in adulthood the relationship of the sisters was much closer. Dawn's divorce had a lot to do with the change. "Dawn's crisis developed a close relationship between us; 203 we pulled together as a family around her. It was a growing experience. Her problems became our problems and worries. We stuck together"(Carol). The shift has been so dramatic that the results on the ABS revealed a closer relationship between Carol and Dawn than between Joel and Dawn, a situa- tion which was not always the case. Conclusion, The proposition as written did not stand up to the data. No direct pattern existed between childhood affect and positive adult relationships. The data indicated that shifts in closeness and affection did occur over time substantiating the Ross, Dalton and Milgram (1981) finding that: "In sibling relationships. however. increases and decreases of closeness were the predominant lifespan patterns." (Ross and Milgram. 1982.p.227) Close, positive relationships during childhood were found to become negative in adulthood and vice-versa. In addition, some relation- ships because of age differences in childhood never really developed either way but were 'neutral'. unemotional, and now only in their late 20's and early 30's were there the beginnings of dnawing closer to one another. The relation- ships in this category were mainly between brothers and sisters. Therefore Proposition #1b was reformulated to read: Closeness between siblings will undergo increases and decreases over the lifespan. 204 NEW Proposition 19, Closeness. as expressed among bro- thers, will be described more in terms of loyalty to family and mutual aid rather than as sharing of feel- ing, dreams, or goals with one another. Brothers were asked about how brothers expressed their closeness with one another. As Ross and Milgram (1982) note: "By far the most complex. elusive, and somewhat ab- stract concept to emerge from our study of adult siblings relationships was that of closeness. Closeness was per- ceived both as an attribute of the family as well as a descriptor of the relationship between siblings."(p.227) In this study the "somewhat abstract" nature of closeness among brothers was related as: "feeling good to do things with them"(Todd S). "a gut feeling"(Bob V). "a security in knowing your brother is there and loyal to you" (John W). "blood is thicker than water" (James W). and "it's a loyal- ty"(Blaine W), and I just know a closeness." (Al S) Sub- jects were asked to be specific as to what behaviors indi- cated that their brother felt close to them. Brothers expressed their closeness by: 1) doing things together or activity sharing; 2) compliments and praise; 3) going to each other for advice; 4) sticking by each other no matter what (loyalty); 5) lending assistance; 6) being willing to listen and understand; and 7) doing special things for each other. The great majority of responses were in the category of mutual aid and shared activities. For example: "There's a lot of looking to one another for advice, 205 assistance, activity sharing" (Todd S). "They do special things with me. It feels good to do things with them" (Al). "Just doing things for one another" (Dennis S). "When I can depend on my brothers for anything. We're so close" (Paul V). "Basically through helping one another" (Jim T). Two brothers also described their expression of close- ness in terms of "sharing feelings" with each other. John Williams related that he experienced himself closest with his brothers when "we actually sit down and talk about our upbringing and how we felt." For Doug T. "it's more of an ability to talk about certain things with them than I can with my sisters." The term closeness has an implication of being bound by loyalties or affections. In an attempt to probe the expres- sion of closeness brothers were asked how they showed "af- fection" to one another. In all five families brothers reported that there was no physical affection shown, e.g. hugs, handshakes, kisses. Rather affection was shown by: 1) "doing things for one another"; 2) "teasing"; 3) "protecting one another"; 4) "being there when needed"; 5) "giving encouragement or compliments"; 6) "expressing concern for each one's life" 7) "being willing to listen and under- stand"; and 8) including one another in our activities." 206 anglgslgn, Based on the data Proposition 1c was par- tially supported and was reformulated: Closeness or affection, as expressed among brothers, will most likely be described in terms of mutual aid and shared activity. Wm Propositign_ld. The degree of sibling affect in adult life that emerges from sibling interaction is influenced by the degree of family cohesiveness. Ross and Milgram (1982; p.228) reported that: "The most powerful contributor to feelings of closeness between indi- vidual siblings was the framework of the family in which siblings grew up. The sense of belonging to the family and of being close to particular siblings, was, for most sub- jects. permanently affected by experiences shared in child- hood." Strong agreement was found with the most recent sibling research (Ross and Milgram 1982; Bank and Kahn 1982) that family and parental cohesiveness are a strong influence on closeness and affect among adult siblings. They share a common reference. Participants were asked: "What is it about your own family (positive or negative) which has con- tributed to the way things are now between your brothers and sisters?" Responses to this question were all quite simi- lar. Emphasis was placed on: 1) parents who were close and provided a positive atmosphere; 2) a family bond or unity. and 3) frequent family activities and trips. Most siblings mentioned their parents uppermost: 207 "They taught us to get along together."(Joel R.) "Parents brought us up to know that families are close. fun loving. stick together and are happy together."(Dawn R.) "Dad's attitude brought about the closeness we had."(Bob V) "Closeness the family instilled. Value of family relationships passed on by parents." (Paul V) "Parents included us in their activities. It was al- ways family activity."(James W) "Watching my mom and dad get along so well for so long provided security and stability. They could have argu- ments but always mended."(Todd S) "Principally it's the closeness of our parents who hold the family together."(Al S) "My mother's upbringing helped keep us close."(Jim T) "We're not an emotional family. The love is internal. not superficial. We got it from our parents. an under- tone of love for each other. We're a tight family. more hidden than externally exhibited."(Ivan T) "Our experience was far different from having an authoritarian father which could really effect the fu- ture relationships with one another and outside per- sons. We had a lot of early freedom and respon- sibility. Our family experience was consistent. frequent interaction which was close."(Blaine W) In addition to parents, it was, as reported by Ross and Milgram (1982, p.229), the "childhood experiences shared as families", such common activities as meals together, vaca- tion trips, extended family gatherings, working on projects, common recreational activities, and get togethers to cele- brate holidays and birthdays which created a spirit of family unity. By sharing in common activities and events a bond developed which in the words of Boszormenyji-Nagy form an 'invisible loyalty'. 208 "I can be sure of each family member." "There is a bond among family, very strong; it's a gut feeling response. Loyalty is high." "We're a tight family. more hidden than externally exhibited." gonglyfiign. Proposition #1d was strongly supported by the data leading to the conclusion that family cohesiveness has a marked influence on the degree of sibling affect. .Eamill_A£L1l1£1£fi_ann_lnflniilnn§ Ezgpgsitign_1e, Family activities and traditions com- municated across generations can serve to build the sense of family with a resultant closeness being built among the siblings. Proposition #1e attempted to explore the intergenera- tional linkages within each family. What connectedness or solidarity did this generation of siblings realize with previous generations which contributed to a closeness among them. It was shown in the discussion of Family Cohesiveness above that family activities were an important factor in building unity and closeness among the siblings. The impor- tance of these activities impacting on each sibling's own family of procreation was explicitely mentioned by only one sibling: "The things we did as kids we now do with our own children" (Dawn R). . The communication of particular family activities and traditions passed on from the grandparent generation and continued by parents and children was explicitely mentioned by one family, the Richmonds. The important role traditions 209 played in this family was discussed earlier in Chapter III. Also it was the only family where grandparents were still involved within the family's active boundaries. The four other sibling groups had their particular traditions which were solely associated with their family of origin. Christmas, Easter and Thanksgiving represented holidays on which they gathered together. In the Vitale family the yearly picnics of the extended family were well remembered but were not being continued since the grand- fathers have died. Now it's the importance of the Sunday dinner. and the memory of what bigger events meant to them. Qonolooiono Proposition #1e was not strongly supported by the data. For further research purposes it would be beneficial to include "family traditions" under the general heading of "family activities" considering their impact on "Family Cohesiveness" under Proposition #1. The existence of family traditions and their meaning in the lives of the family members interviewed may well have been greater than was found. More precise and probing questions on this variable are needed. Wm During the interview process a fourth variable was found to be influential upon the degree of sibling affect in adult life and needed to be added to the consideration of Proposition #1. Separations of siblings due to college or marriage have been shown to deeply affect the sibling bond 210 (Bank and Kahn 1975; Mead 1972; and Arnstein 1979). In this study war separated Blaine and James W. altering their relationship. A tremendous loss may be felt with the know- ledge that the relationship enjoyed thus far in life will no longer be the same. In the case of marriage a brother-in- law or sister-in-law enters the family environment with either positive or negative effects. E.M. Duvall's study In:Lans; Pro and Qon,(1954) highlights many of the trouble- some difficulties. Although questions about spouses were included on the Interview Guides no proposition, a priori, was developed to account for this variable. The data on spouses of sib- lings, however, was found to be contributory in the analysis of adult sibling relationships. 0f the five family cases only four were relevant for this discussion since at the time of the interviews none of the Stevens siblings were married or engaged. Effects of spouses were found to be generally positive and in a few cases established for the siblings a new level of relationship. Negative effects were also found. In order to handle marriage/sibling difficul- ties siblings found solutions or ended the marriages. Marriage seems to serve as a 'rite of passage' to a more mature sibling relationship. Topics of conversation and issues discussed begin to focus on life issues, e.g. economics, homes, children, marital relations, schools, family matters, and not so much on possible sibling con- flicts left over from earlier years. 211 Williomoo Among the Williams brothers the effect of marriage has been greatest for James who was still single: My sisters-in-law both enhance and interfere. They have not really made any change in my relationships. If they weren't around my relationship would be closer. They're [brothers] not as accessible to me now that they are married. Blaine saw no change in his brother relationships because of his spouse. John said his wife was a straight-forward person and found it just as easy to disagree with both his brothers and not have it affect his relationship with his brothers. Iomooniono Among the Tomourien siblings their mar- riages have had both positive and negative influences on their relationships. For Jim his wife has been really "helpful". He added: Before marriage I was real negative about things. She has helped me to understand my siblings. Overall each in-law has enhanced my relationship with my siblings. Mainly because of the changes in my siblings due to marriage. Ivan's wife and mine get along great. I get along better with Wilbur (Joan's husband) than I do with Joan. For Joan the effect has been mixed: "I've been drawn closer to Jim because of Ginny; grown closer to Toni be- cause of her marriage problems; and with Ivan [we have] been drawn further apart because his wife regards the family as hostile towards her." Ivan and Doug didn't regard their sister or brother-in- laws as having much of an impact on their relationship. Ivan and Doug were really close as it was, and Ivan's rela- tionship with his sisters was neither hot nor cold. Toni 212 found that she got close with Jim since he married. Her own marriage has changed her relationship with Joan - "it has helped me talk with my sister, now I can relate to what she was going through." 11131:; Mixed effects characterized the results of marriage within the Vitale family. Those siblings inter- viewed were frank in their assessments. Bob was thankful for the fact that Monk's second wife "has settled him down and straightened him out." However, he has hostile feelings towards Paul's wife - "She takes away from our relationship. He used to be a super guy and now he's just a good guy." Bob related that his wife was the least interfering of the sisters-in-law. Because she came from a similar type of family "she understands our family closeness and supports my closeness with my brothers." And because of his one brother-in-law he has "grown closer to (his) sister since she's been married." Paul has found that his wife "resented the closeness with my brothers but I'm changing that. I wouldn't let her interfere with my relationships with them. She accused me of putting them first, but not really, she's first." Nancy reported that Paul's wife presented some difficulty for other sibs, -- "Paul's wife is different. She's changed Paul a lot and she has made it difficult at times." From previous data it was clear that the family pride and image of itself prevents it from integrating differentness. _fiionmono. For the Richmond siblings the fact that 213 "brothers and sisters-in-law were included within the family circle" prior to the marriages created a cooperative and understanding atmosphere. Unfortunately for Dawn this did not work out as well. Her first marriage ended in divorce because her husband interfered and made it difficult for her to maintain the closeness she had known. Her second hus- band, well liked by her siblings, has been far more suppor- tive and has made her family his own - "the family he never had." Adjustments in Joel and Dawn's relationship have had to be made since Joel married. As Dawn related the shift in closeness: "Since their marriage Joel and I have become more distant. Before she was in the picture it was always Joel and I. Barbara became jealous of our closeness. Joel told me. We could no longer just go off the two of us waterskiing or whatever. Now we do things as couples and family. but it's not as special as before. Hasn't injured our relationship just different and not as intense." For Joel, his sisters have really helped his marriage. They get along well with his wife. "My sisters have helped my wife to adjust to my being an outdoors person. They got her to get into waterskiing and racquetball. They have socialized her to outgo ing activities." What emerged from this statement by Joel was an expression of true sibling understanding of a sibs needs. Knowing their brother as being very active his sisters intervened and "socialized" their sister-in-law to activities she can share with their brother. The lesson of Deb's first marriage seemed to have been integrated allowing her to "give up" something special 214 she had with Joel for the sake of his marriage. Analysis of the data reveals that if a marriage is to succeed a new balance has to be established, one that allows for some of the old sibling dynamic and yet allows for the establishment of boundaries which are respective of spousal bonds. gonolooiono For siblings, marriages can be 'mixed blessings', either strengthening, establishing or detract- ing from sibling bonds of closeness. The data indicated the importance of this factor for understanding the adult sibling relationship. Any future research should examine the marriage factor more extensively. The following proposi- tion was developed to guide such efforts: Proposition #1f: Closeness of adult sibling relationships after marriage may be maintained or enhanced when sisters and/or brothers-in-law both understand and are supportive of the importance of such sibling relationships. Sonmonyo Propositions #1a thru 1e were generally sup- ported by the data. In most cases it was siblings of the same sex and closest in age who in early adult life express- ed the strongest affection for each other. Brothers were generally much closer to each other than they were to sis- ters, although there were two cases to the opposite. An intervening sibling did not always impede a close bond developing between an older and youngest brother. Family cohesiveness appeared as a strong variable influencing sib- ling affect. Increases and decreases in closeness appeared to be the pattern among siblings over the lifespan. Close- ness and positive affect during childhood was not an 215 indicator of closeness and positive affect in adulthood. Marriage among siblings can be a "mixed blessing", either establishing, strengthening or detracting from the prior sibling bond. WonAdulththenBole Enooooition a. Sibling roles are not clearly scripted by norms and it can be expected that both within and among families there will be found both low consensus and ambiguity concerning the nature and meaning of the brother role in the family. In Chapter V (pp.135-138, 142-148) research questions #1 and #3 reviewed the data on the "meaning" and "expecta- tions" of the brother role in the family. Based on a defi- nition of "role" as "a more or less integrated set of social norms or expectations", a preliminary conclusion was reached: a definite set of expecta tions existed which defined the adult brother role in the family. The 'defini- tion' offered spontaneously by one-half of the sub jects was "that he be there when needed." Added to this was that a brother was a "special or close friend." Brothers were expected to play an important role in family survival by being available ["be there"] when needed in whatever way they were needed, be it physical or emotional. Not stated but seemingly implied was that a brother be available will- ingly because he wanted to. Being available included behav- iors such as: participation in family functions, maintain- ing contact, mutual assistance and emotional support in ordinary life events and in crises. 216 It was the composite of all the behaviors, attitudes, and expectations mentioned by the participants which allowed for identifying that an adult brother fulfills his role in the family when he is available when needed. The data suggests that there is a set of expectations which specify a role for adult brothers. This preliminary conclusion needs to be further tested on larger and more diverse samples of brothers. The suggestion by Bott and Hill (cited in Burr et al, 1979) needs to be taken into consideration, i.e. that people respond to checklists of ideas much easier than to direct questions about role expectations (p.54). Using the present study's findings and previous research (Arkin, 1979; Ross and Milgram, 1982) a checklist instrument could be constructed to determine if the norms or expectations found here can be duplicated. An objective instrument would allow for various statistical measures to be used. Given a com- prehensive checklist it would be conceivable that a broader study on the adult brother role could be conducted without the type of extensive interviewing done for this study. An initial checklist instrument was constructed and appears in Appendix L. Some consensus and clarity about the nature and meaning of brothers was sought. The analysis for consensus and clarity focused on the expectations held of brothers by family members. "Consensus on role expectations refers to how much the role expectations of two or more individuals agree or disagree" (Burr et al, 1979a, p.59). Agreement 217 indicates high consensus and disagreement indicates low consensus. "Clarity of role expectations ... denotes how ambiguous or hazy versus how indentifiable the expectations are" (Burr et al 1979a, p.60). In this study consensus and clarity were calculated based on the interview data. No scales of agreement/disagreement or clarity/ambiguity were used. It was agreed upon by 16 of the 28 subjects that a brother was expected "to be there when needed." This expec- tation included a variety of behaviors:- physical help, emotional support, companionship for activities, and a lis- tening ear. It could be hypothesized that if this expecta- tion was included on a check list a higher consensus would have been obtained. This was based on the finding of Bott and Hill (see p.144) A second area of ex pectation emerged in the data which had high consensus among 18 of the 28 subjects. This was a general expectation that each brother do well, achieving his best. (Data on the achievement expectation was discussed in Chap. V, p.144). The question of "clarity of expectations" presented an analytical problem - how to determine clarity? The rule of thumb agreed upon was - if a subject could specify what he or she expected of their brother clarity was presumed. 0f the siblings interviewed only 5 brothers and sisters could not identify their expectations with any specificity. This led to the conclusion that among the five families there was a high degree of clarity about what family members expected 218 of each brother. However, many of the expectations were quite specific and did not relate to role behaviors within the family but had more to do with outside objectives or achievement goals. Qonolooiono Based on the data it can be said that among the families studied there was high consensus in two areas seen by participants as associated with brothers, i.e. support (being there) and achievement. Secondly, the major- ity of subjects were clear about their individual expecta- tions. A certain amount of consensus and clarity was found to exist. The data suggested that there was a recognized role for adult brothers in the family. However, this role was not found to be fully scripted by norms. There was a variety of behaviors by which brothers fulfilled their role. This finding would be in agreement with Turner (1962), Biddle (1979) and Schvaneveldt and Ihinger (1979), that much of what persons do in their role was the result of "role making". The process of role making was somewhat dependent upon personality, age, sex, and sibling position and size of family. More objective research should be conducted to test the veracity of this finding. Proposition #2 should be kept in its present form because the data, although highly sug- gesting a norm for the adult brother role, cannot be regard- ed as conclusive. Wfififllfi Enooooition #3. Expectations concerning the role of brothers in the family will be the result of familial history and experience and will be expressed as a men- tal set of ideas about who a brother is or should be. 219 According to Burr et al (1979. p.55) "expectations are in people's minds, and they are expectations about interac- tional processes." These procses are the behaviors which occur between interacting subjects. It has been pointed out above that the expected behaviors of brothers within the family system were varied and general - "to be there when needed", and "to achieve one's best". These expectations in themselves were vague but did represent some "mental set of ideas" which was associated with them. The results ~on expectations has indicated that the role of brothers. as perceived by the subjects interviewed, was fairly unstruc- tured. This finding would be in line with the thinking of Turner (1962). He and others would "recognize that there are some commonly held expectations for the occupant of a role, but they emphasize that there is usually considerable room for in dividual differences in roles, and there is no clear cut normative script for much of what persons do in a role" (Burr et al. p.54). According to Turner what people do. even in structured roles is "role making." The proposition that "familial history and experience" might have some kind of formative impact on expectations of the role of brothers was considered as speculative in its formulation. Underlying this proposition was the concept of "intergenerational transmission". The assumption was made that possibly expectations of who a brother is or should be are communicated from one generation to the next much like attitudes. sex roles, or political and religious affilia— 220 tion might be. However, the family history data reviewed in Chapter III, and the data on parental expectations of their children as siblings, and of their own siblings, does not support a family history impact on expectations. This con- clusion is supportive of Troll and Bengston's (1979) con- clusions that the common assumption "that the stronger ' (closer, more attractive) the bond to the parent, the more similar in the behavior or orientation of the offspring to that of the parent. This assumption can now be considered unwarranted" (p.156). The application of their conclusion seems appropriate here. and helpful in explaining the lack of linkage relative to expectations from one generation to the next. The expectations of brothers about which there was some consensus (cf.Research Question #3. pp.142-149) could be characterized under the concept of "loyalty". If a brother was loyal then he "will be there when needed", and "will achieve his best." His bond to his siblings and parents, given some measure of obligation or indebtedness to them. would, it seems, become expressed by fulfilling some parti- cular role expectations. "...to be a loyal member of a group, one has to internalize the spirit of its expectations and have a set of specifiable attitudes to comply with the internalized injunctions" (Boszormenyi-Nagy and Spark, 1973, p.37). However, there will most likely be in dividual differences in the fulfillment of such role expectations (Turner 1962). What was fundamentally important was that 221 the commitment to the family group be assured. Proposition #3 therefore was seen as not being supported as formulated. The reformulated proposition is: Expectations concerning the role of brothers in the family will be expressed by some mental set of ideas which may or may not have their origins in the family's loyalty and justice systems. Emmi Enooooition #5. As personality attributes or status (age, sex) attributes vary, children will utilize such attributes to establish a unique "identity" with the family. The above proposition was developed by Schvaneveldt and Ihinger (1979) based on their review of literature on sib- ling roles (Bossard and Boll, 1960; Bank and Kahn, 1975; Brim, 1958). Bossard and Boll took the position that because there is a lack of "prescribed" roles children become crea- tive in "making" a role for themselves within the family which will be meaningful. This position was supported by Turner (1962) and Aldous (1978), and Schvaneveldt and Ihinger (1979) who used the term "incipient role" to desig- nate those personality attributes which a sibling uses to play a specific role. According to Bossard and Boll (1960) even the "reputations" of siblings are developed within the family whereby their own personal uniqueness is established. The issue of a "unique identity" within the family was discussed briefly under the findings of Resarch Question #4 (p.138). The various roles performed by brothers according to sibling position were outlined. The following analysis 222 takes a more detailed look at each sibling system taking into consideration, as-far as possible, the major personali- ty attributes, as they contribute to "identity" establish- ment. Focus was primarily upon the brothers. Some atten- tion was given to sisters where the dynamics were clearly evident in influencing a brother's role. Williomoo Blaine, the oldest, was described as independent, resourceful, competitive and self-confident. According to Blaine: "I've never looked up to anyone. I was big, coordinated, grew up fast; always playing around with kids 2 to 3 years older. It matured me. I had author- ity in: my first job over men twice my age." Blaine was regarded as quick and decisive by his brothers. His role in the family was "information provider/problem solver". He had used his personality attributes. physical traits and posi- tion to develop a certain prestige in the family whereby his brothers and even his father looked up to him. John, the middle brother, from observation and analysis of the data, has managed to create his "identity" by merging his more "person oriented" personality with his "aggressive drive in business" and second brother status, to create a role of being the family "peacemaker/mediator". His emo- tional tie and loyalty to the family fed into his role. James, youngest, saw himself as the family's "practical joker". As his parents reported, he was the "most humor- ous". As the youngest James could afford to be more "laid back" about life: "As youngest I assumed the older ones 223 were taking care of family responsibilities if necessary. If mom or dad died or were injured the older ones would take the responsibility." James has a more carefree approach to life and by being "friendly and outgoing" was able to have the time and disposition to insert humor into the family of brothers who were occupied with achieve ment and fulfilling what could be assumed to be unspoken paternal expectations for success in the business world. Stoyonoo Even though Todd was the oldest brother he did not achieve an "identity" within the family commensurate with his age or sex. He described himself as "shy" and as "the forgotten man". Todd's shyness may be the socializa- tion result of follow ing an older sister who was also shy and non-aggressive. Todd's role within the family was seen by himself as the "crazy one" (humorist). and by his parents as the "arbitrator" settling dis putes between his two younger brothers. The "initiator", "doer", "planner/leader"in the family was Al. His "outgoing. aggressive and competititive" person- ality helped to create for him a dominant position in the family although he was a middle child. He was the "odd man" among his brothers, the one who "did his own thing." His role was more a result of personality than age or position. Dennis, the youngest, has the role of being the family "jokester and teaser". Actually his identity in the family was a combination of his two older brothers - humorist and leader. Growing up he chose to relate to Todd in being quiet 224 and content, but has continually 'tried on' Al's role when Al was not around exercising his own self-confidence. At these times he would be the "initiator/planner" of family activities. litoloo "Being the oldest I have always felt somewhat as the Protector of the family."(Monk) His next youngest brother regarded Monk's role as one of ancestry (status) - "head of the house is the father. After him the eldest brother has the authority, but it has not lasted."(Bob) Although the more responsible one during childhood and teen years Monk "lost" his identity in the eyes of his brothers. His role identity came with the status of age. sex and position,‘ and when he was seen as being 'disloyal' to that position by becoming a "loner" his role identity as "protector" diminished. Also age shifts impacted on Monk's position--"once Paul was about 20 the age differences evened out and we lost respect for the authority position [Monk]. During our teen years Monk held position of responsibili- ty."(Bob) Bob. as second brother, was "automatically in second place" and "belonged to mom".(Bob) While his older brother became "dad's right hand man" he became his mother's helper. From this position he developed the role of being the "handyman", the "fixer" of things. As adults his siblings still brought things to him to be fixed. Being introverted Bob became more of a home body than his brothers. Bob's identity and role in the family shifted since early 225 adulthood. As mentioned above "during teen years Monk held the position of responsibility." "When younger Monk looked over all of us. Now he's involved with job and family. Now Bob plays the role of the responsible one, looking out for everyone." (Nancy) Paul. as youngest, was the family "mediator" and "instigator". Bob humorously described Paul's role as the family "Godfather". As Paul put it: "I was always in between my brothers." He was described as aggressive. orga- nized and enthusiastic. By nature he said he had a gift for calming people down and thus developed into the family mediator. I Iomooniono "Taking charge of family affairs" and "keep ing everyone on the straight path" earned Jim the role title of "surrogate father". His role came by way of age and sex within an ethnically oriented family. His personality matched his role well. He was described as "ambitious, goal oriented, persistent and a worrier" and "above all a strong sense of resonsibility." Following two rather obedient siblings Ivan pursued a trouble making role for a while which earned him a few years of conflict with his father. Since he was seen by his siblings as the "brightest of the bunch" he developed his role identity around being an "information giver". He was conversant on current events and watched local politics carefully. 226 Doug, the youngest, carved out a "storyteller" role for him self. ' Storytelling seemed to fit with his laid back approach to life and his attraction to living off the land and riding off into the hills on his horse for weeks at a time. His older sister reported that it was hard for Doug to develop a role because he was always the "third brother, odd man out, not fitting in". Bionmonoo The Richmond siblings lived out the roles of "responsible one" (oldest sister). the "problem child (middle sister) and the "jokester" (youngest brother). Being the only male child Joel automatically had status in his family and additionally achieved it on his own by excellng in sports which gained him parental' praise and sisterly admiration. He combined his being "Mr. Sport" with humor and became the family "jokester". By way of inter- pretation what Joel did was fulfill a much needed function with his role by lightening up a family situation which for a while was serious and conflictual. During Dawn's problem years when everyone was worried over her Joel provided 'light entertainment'. Conglooiono Based on the case study data propostion #4 was upheld as depicting a definite dynamic operative among adult brothers within the family system. However, the data also supports the addition of another variable to the propo- sition - the family environment. Although more ambiguous than personality and status the nature of the family environment provides an overall context for role 227 development. It need not be the total environment which needs to be taken into consideration but specific aspects which impact on identity development. For example, in each of the five families studied the following factors appeared to impact on identity development: a father's death (Tomourien), ethnic family heritage (Vitale), parental per- sonalities (Stevens), outside peer influence (Richmond), and family business and sports (Williams). Proposition #4 was reformulated to read: As personality atttibutes, status (age.sex). and aspects of the family's environment vary, brothers will utilize such attributes and key environmental factors to establish a unique "identity" within the family. Wang: Enooooition_#floo Having a strong identity of being a brother within the family system will lead to actions and behaviors with other siblings which serve to fur- ther build the bond of sibling relationships. One of the functions performed by siblings for one another as identified by Bank and Kahn (1975) was "direct service". They are part of the day to day living with one's siblings. "Both within the family and outside. siblings perform valuable. tangible services for each other. ...They teach each other skills.lend each other money. manipu- late powerful friendship rewards for one another. and serve as controllers of resources; ...The exchange of goods and services among siblings in the emotional autonomy of the sibling underworld is in continuous flux and is subject to subtle and continuous negotia- tion, balancing and change" (Bank and Kahn.1975.p.504). The above proposition makes the assumption that if a male sibling engaged in constructive behavior toward his 228 siblings such actions were interpreted as "brotherly" whet- her or not a brother was conscious of his actions as part of his role behavior. Schvaneveldt and Ihinger (1979) using Exchange Theory developed a similar proposition: "The ex- change of goods and services in the sibling complex facili- tates interaction in the group and this increases sibling solidarity" (p.460). The "actions and behaviors" in the above proposition translated into "goods and services" when the data was analyzed. Both role performance and exchange of goods and services presuppose some interaction. While siblings are living under one roof opportunities exist daily for some interactive exchanges. But what happens when each establishes his or her own household, do helping behaviors continue? This depends, of course, on several known fac- tors: physical proximity, emotional closeness, and ability to be of service. Since all but two of the siblings inter- viewed lived in the same city the question was appropriate to explore. All of the brothers interviewed reported the existence of continual "direct service" to one another, even in the cases where some conflict existed. In most cases the nature of the dyadic relationship was such that there was an open- ness for an exchange of helping behaviors. The data on the particular in stances of direct service among the brothers in each family was presented in Chapter 4. As adults, the direct services engaged in by brothers were: helping to build a brother's new home, caring for joint 229 property, repairing items according to one's talents, taking vacation time to be with a visiting brother. providing companionship for a divorced sibling, providing financial loans for houses and cars,. doing errands for each other, exchanging books and music. helping with each other's child- ren, and just merely being on the other end of the phone when needed. Instances of direct service within each sib- ling constellation were considered more specifically in Chapter IV on "Functions". The direct service or positive actions indeed existed among brothers. Did they "serve to further build the bond of sibling relationships"? In some cases the reported beha- viors were done more out of obligation to keep the peace or a justice balance than to build the relationship. In other cases a mutual and warm closeness was present and the hel- ping behaviors seemed to serve to maintain or strengthen the bond. One has to be careful in interpreting the nature of such exchanges. The work of Boszormenyi-Nagy and Spark. lnyloibl§_Loxalti§§_(1973) needs to be kept in mind relative to the justice system and ledgers kept within families and between members. In their conceptualization of family rela- tionships and loyalty as a force within the family. they "had to consider the existence of an invisible ledger which keeps account of past and present obligations among family members" (Nagy and Spark,1973. p.53). "The fact that the individual must balance unearned and stored accounts of justice and injustice necessitates the assumption of an 230 implicit quantification of equity exchanges — an invisible ledger, a transgenerational bookeeping of merits" (Boszormenyi-Nagy and Spark. p.35). Whether a strong identity of being a brother leads to positive actions and behaviors can be answered affirmative- ly. In the eight cases which could be classified "strong identity of being a brother" the initiative of action. for the most part. began with one of these eight brothers. Qonolooion. In most cases the "direct service“ activi- ty of the brothers appeared to maintain and/or build the sibling bond. At the minimum direct service activity kept the brothers in useful contact with each other. The types of service activity mentioned seemed to have given each brother a sense of meeting a need in the other. For purpose of clarification, and relationship to other research re- sults Proposition #4A was reformulated to read: Having a strong identity as a brother within the family system can facilitate the exchange of goods and services among brothers which may in turn serve to build the brother relationship. Wm: Enooooition_#flo. Labels or nicknames given to siblings during childhood by parents or by each other will carry over into adult years and continue to characterize the sibling relationship. Finding one's own identity and role within the family may be complicated by the presence of labels which may take the form of nicknames (Arnstein 1979). The results of labeling can be damaging to a growing personality especial- ly when they look a person into an assigned role which he or 231 she has been expected to fulfill. Being labeled the 'slow- poke', the 'scatterbrain', the 'troublemaker', or the 'prob- lem solver', the 'brain' or 'Miss Perfect', during childhood can inhibit, as Arnstein (1979) noted. the formation of new images of a sibling years after they have become different. Even when labels and nicknames are used in 'fun' or 'teas- ing' they can perpetuate old patterns of relationship and effect a more equal and adult sibling relationship from developing. Siblings were asked about the presence of labels and nicknames. For the most part nicknames were used during childhood and adolescence. Some had more than one. Among the Williams brothers nicknames were not used. Of the numerous nicknames used only in three cases did the nickname carry with it a labeling of a role. In the Tomourien fami- ly, Doug, who was regarded as underachieving and seen as wasting his time was called "Doodle", and now as an adult he continues to try to shake that image and label by ap- plying himself to his work in a more disciplined manner. Yet the continued use of the nickname by his siblings. although said in fun, was a reminder of their earlier per- spective of him. Helen 8. an only sister. and the brunt of much teasing by her brothers was still reminded of her only girl status among her brothers. Dawn R.. a middle child, who was strongly labeled the "problem child", fulfilled the 'prophe- sy' into young adulthood. "I felt it so, I always felt I 232 caused more problems, and I did what was expected of me." This label has only recently been put aside when she settled down and began, as she said, to "act like an adult". Now her sister and brother have the task of relating to a 'new sister' one they don't have to worry about anymore. gonolnoiono Most nicknames as such have not carried over into adulthood, and most of the nicknames used by siblings did not have a "labeling" quality to them. They were childhood 'put downs', 'teasers', or terms of 'affec- tion'. A distinction needs to be made, based on the data surrounding this proposition, between "labels" and "nick- names". They do not seem to be the same. There was a big difference between being called the "troublemaker" and being called "Dude". The nicknames used seem to have been asso- ciated with an historical event or behavior. Labels used seemed to be reflective of a 'way of being', an attribute closely associated with a sibling's personality. Proposition #48 was reformulated as: Labels given to siblings during childhood by parents or by each other, and which have the intent of summing up the individual's personality or way of being in the family can carry over into the adult years characteri- zing if not molding or limiting all or some of the dyadic sibling relationships. WostiMaBmtheL Enooooition #flo. The experience of being a bro- ther in a family will vary according to the structure of the sibling constellation and sibling position. 233 Adler (1958), a pioneer on the question of birth order, has said that: "the position in the family leaves an indel- ible stamp upon the style of life" (p.154). Lucille Forer (1976) elaborating on Adler's position concurs that birth order is important but it is "only one of many environmental factors important in developing and maintaining life roles" (p.6). "...it is not the position of birth that is important but rather your experiences with other members of your family as a result of being the oldest, middle. young- est, or only child. Whatever your position, it has determined to a large degree how you attempt to meet the goals you set for yourself. or that have been assigned to you. All mem- bers of a family force upon one another certain pat- terns of behavior as they interact in meeting their needs. Included in these patterns of behavior are at- titudes - ways of coping with situations and with others which are related to the position the person holds in the family. Together they make up the role which the individual assumes later in life whenever he is placed in a situation similar to one encountered in his childhood family. It is in this way. as Alfred Adler believed, that the position in the family leaves an indelible stamp c on a person's life style."(Forer 1979. p.154) The existence of five different constellation patterns: all brothers (A-B); oldest brother with brothers and sisters (OB-BS); oldest sister with younger brothers (OS-BB); older brothers with younger sister (OBB-S); and older sisters with younger brother (OSS-B), enabled an exploration of the above proposition from many experiences and perspectives. The proposition was consonant with the thinking of Adler and Forer. 234 E1Lo1_oonn_onothons, There were three first born brot- hers among those studied: one had only younger brothers (A- B). one had brothers immediately following him with a sister 12 years younger (OBB-S). and one had both younger brothers and sisters spaced apart (OB-BS). The oldest brother of brothers said that: "being first was not made a big thing of - never was held responsible for my brothers. I was just the first to do everything" (Blaine). This brother did not fit the stereotype of the first born being the 'responsible one'. Forer (1976. pp.41-46) developed a composite persona- lity pattern of first borns, and Blaine, in many ways, did not fit into the pattern of being "conservative....jealous or anxious....needing approval....and having a strong sense of responsibility." Blaine was not described in this way His experience of being the oldest brother was one of set- ting his own mark in life. His brothers were independent of him and could achieve what they wanted. The two other first born brothers saw themselves and were seen by their siblings as "leaders and protectors" of the sibling group. And so for Jim T. (OB-BS) in a position of being "surrogate father" he experienced himself as a brother being watchful over his siblings. He said it was expected of him to be "responsible" for his younger sisters and brothers, and he fulfilled the expectation. Monk V (OBB-S) also a "protector" spent a lot of his time being a brother "protector" and "teacher" during child- hood and adolescence, taking his youngest brother under his 235 wing, and trying to shape his sibling's thinking. Unlike Jim he lost that position as an adult. It has been taken over by his next youngest brother. Bob. These first born brothers occupied the same position in three different constellations. and as shown above had dif- ferent experiences. The experience for Jim has been "worri- some" because of his quasi-parental role identity. Blaine. on the other hand, appeared free of worry, felt responsible for himself, and like his father before him, "gave" his brothers "freedom and responsibility" for their own lives. Monk's experience, based on the interviews with his sib- lings, appeared to be one of "dethronement" later in life. He became the "loner" for a while, after high school, dis- tancing himself from the family, and when he did it appeared that his next brother stepped into his position becoming as both Paul and Nancy reported "the responsible one." M1dfll£..h£2£h§£§l Middle siblings vary in their posi- tional experience depending upon the number of children in the family, sex of those older and younger, and spacing between siblings. (Arnstein 1979) Middle siblings have been found to be "sandwiched" or left out of the action. If from larger families they form alliances with other middle sib- lings. The middle of three seems to have the toughest time of it during childhood and adolescence (Forer 1976; Arnstein 1979). Seven of the brothers interviewed were middle children.. Six of these had a brother who shared a middle position 236 while one was the middle of three. Experiences of each varied. and as Arnstein made mention: "the personality of the middle sib, of course, affects each one's experience (p.116). Ivan and Doug T (OB-BS) were in the middle of six siblings, an older brother and sister and a younger sister and brother. At times as a child Ivan felt "neither/nor" about his place in the family. His older brother held the limelight, and to bring some attention to himself, it seems, he became the family "troublemaker" until he .got married. Today he said "it doesn't matter anymore" because a greater equality exists with his older brother. Together they share interests and responsibilities around family concerns. For Ivan. "having brothers and sisters evened things out, keeps you from being too hard or too soft." Doug T.enjoyed his middle position mainly because he was the youngest 'active' brother (the youngest brother was retarded and confined to home and hospitals) who became his father's favorite. He aligned himself with Ivan as a child and adolescent because of age closeness. However. presently he felt more inclined towards his oldest brother's ideas and values. His older sister. Joan, pointed out that because he was the "third brother. odd man out" it was hard for him to develop a role among his brothers. Bob and Paul V (OBB-S) both said it was "easier being in the middle." "The precedent was set", and for Paul "his brothers took care of things." Their older brother during 237 childhood and adolescence held both authority and responsi- bility. As adults that has changed. as explained earlier, and the middle brothers were now experiencing new areas of responsibility for the family. Todd and Al S.(OS-BB) have opposing experiences of being middle brothers. Todd, although the oldest brother. felt in his position "like the forgotten man." His two younger brothers got the exposure and became known outside the family. "They did not want to be like me", i.e. shy and introverted. He settled for getting what his older sister got. "no more, no less", but nevertheless felt "skipped over and missed." Al's experience was "one of following my older brother." "It was hard because we were so different." When younger. Al would intimidate Todd, Dennis would come to Todd's defence. Being a middle brother for Al was one of being different, of going off and doing his own thing. John W (A-B) was the middle of three brothers. He was the only middle brother who spoke of feeling responsible "for both ends of the candle." He was seen as the family "peacemaker" and was the one who initiated family activities or meetings. In many ways John seemed to have taken on the expected role of an oldest brother which he felt his brother should have fulfilled. Middle brothers varied in their experiences-- some acting more like an oldest brother, and others feeling lost in the competition. 238 Ionngoot__onotnonoo Three brothers held the youngest position in their sibling groups. Forer wrote that: "If you are the youngest child you are likely to be charming, a good companion, playful and lighthearted. You may have strong expectations that there always will be someone to take care of you, since You were the baby of the family and there was always one or more older persons around to help you" (p.11). The experiences of the youngest brothers in the study varied as to whether one had older brothers or sisters. Dennis S and James W both had two older brothers. James fits the pattern described by Forer. Being youngest for James had a "definite impact on my confidence level. I don't think I have as much confidence because they were able to do so many things and I didn't have to worry about it. I always had my brothers there and so I didn't have to do something." Dennis saw "no distinction between being oldest or youngest; it was the middle person who was dif- ferent." His experience as youngest was so relational to the oldest that it would seem he did not regard himSelf as less than equal with Todd. Joel R (OSS-B) with two older sisters, reflects a definite sex influence in his experience of being a brother. He was his sisters' "protector" and "companion and soul- mate" to his younger sister, Dawn. Being a male more was expected of him it seemed "although younger I regarded him as my big brother"(Carol). He did not have, however, some 239 of the privileges of being youngest. The family highly recognized him for his achievements. He was the favored son around whom much family activity revolved. As Carol said - "Joel made life exciting for us". As noted earlier Joel was the "jokester" of the family. Conclooion. Proposition #4C as stated was supported by study's findings: The experience of being a brother in the family will vary according to the structure of the sibling constellation and sibling position. WW Enooooition_#5, Assimilation of sex roles in the sib- ling complex is facilitated by the presence of opposite sex members with the greatest impact being from elder to younger siblings. Previous research on children and college students (Brim, 1958; Sutton-Smith and Rosenberg. 1970) has demon- strated cross sex role influence within the sibling complex. The above proposition was developed by Schvaneveldt and Ihinger (1979) based on their review of sibling literature. The data from this study relative to this proposition was considered at length under the discussion of Research Question #5 (see Chapter VI, pp 152-157) and below in Propo- sition #5A. Enough evidence existed in the data to support a find- ing that siblings have an impact on one another's sex role development. Based on Role Theory it was assumed that this occurred through both role modeling and daily interaction. It was Brim's (1958) hypothesis that "interaction between 240 the two persons leads to assimilation of roles, to the incor- poration of elements of the role of the other into the actor's role" (p.2). Proposition #5 contended that the assimilation of sex roles "has its greatest impact from elder to younger sib- lings. The present data, particularly the results of the Personality Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ), as a measurement of such an impact, did not clearly support such a direction- ality.(see Table 7.2, Chap. VII, p.171) V Brothers and sisters with younger siblings of the oppo- site sex reported a significant impact of these siblings (see Research Question #5). In addition the PAQ results did not show a strong enough pattern to support this part of the proposition. Of the six brothers with an older sister only three exhibited per sonality traits which were measured by the PAQ as more feminine and/or androgynous. Because of the small sample and exploratory nature of the study, combined with the strength of role theory and previous research, Proposition #5 should remain as stated. The issue of sex role learning is far more complex than was able to be ex- plored in this study and research solely devoted to this question would be necessary to arrive at a more definitive conclusion. E 1.! I E] E 0]] §' ! Pcoposition #5A. Brothers with an older sister will develop more expressive or feminine personality charac- teristics than brothers without older sisters. 241 In order to test Proposition #5A. subjects were admin- istered the Personality Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ) deve- loped by Spence and Helmreich (1978) . Both Self and Other scores were obtained for each family member. Description of the PAQ was in Chapter II. pp.43-46. The tabulated results and discussion of the findings are in Chapter IV, Table 7.3. pp.172. The data within Table 7.3 was used in determining support, reformulation or rejection of the above propo- sition. Six brothers had an older sister or sisters. The age differences between a brother and his oldest sister ranged from 2 to 6 years. Reported perceived influence of the sister on her brother varied from little or none to an important amount. Factors of age differences and perceived influence should be kept in mind in determining the strength or weakness of this proposition. The fact of a small sample should never be overlooked. Within the Schema represented in Table 7.3 the six brothers were categorized according to their self scores as follows: Todd S - Feminine Ivan T - Masculine Al S - Androgynous Doug T - Undifferentiated Dennis S - Undifferentiated Joel R - Androgynous It could be said that only 3 of the brothers developed expressive personality characteristics, one scoring very high on the Feminine scale and two high on both Feminine and Masculine scales (Androgynous). 242 What of the 7 brothers with no older sister? Were there differences? Within the same table these 7 brothers were categorized according to their self scores as follows: Jim T - Masculine Blaine W - Undifferentiated Monk V - Androgynous John W - Androgynous Bob V - Masculine James W - Androgynous Paul V - Androgynous Four of the seven brothers possess a high degree of feminine or expressive characteristics. The results do not clearly provide support for the Proposition. Because of the small sample it was not even feasible to examine age differences. Reported influence of older sisters on brothers was definitely clear in only one case (OSS-B) where Joel R. had two older sisters, two and four years older. On the PAQ he was categorized as Androgynous. This one case ran counter to Sutton-Smith and Rosenberg's (1970) finding that boys with two or more older sisters usually overcompensated and developed more masculine traits. The overcompensation may have been true of Joel during childhood and early adolescence when Joel was highly developing in masculine type sports--football and wrestling. Now as an adult there appeared to be an integration of both masculine and feminine attributes. The earlier findings may be lifecycle specific. Based only on six cases of brothers with older sisters it would be premature to reject proposition #5A given pre- vious research support based on younger subjects. It should 2u3 remain as formulated until further research of a lifecycle nature can be undertaken. WW £1oooo1t1on_#oo "Selfhood" as a sibling is fostered by the dual process of identifying with siblings in cer- tain areas and rejecting or differentiating from them in other areas. Proposition #6 was developed by Schvaneveldt and Ihinger (1979) and was primarily based on their review of Bank and Kahn's 1975 published findings. The data on this proposition was extensively presented and analyzed in Chap- ter IV under the consideration of Research Question #2 on "functions". The data was strongly supportive of this pro- position as it pertained to the brothers included in this study. The reader is referred to Chapter IV, pp.105-133 for the supporting evidence. Because. for the most part. only the brother-brother relationships were analyzed relative to this proposition the wording should reflect this factor. Therefore, proposition #6 was reformulated: "Selfhood" as a brother is fostered by the dual process of identifying with another brother in certain areas and rejecting or differentiating from him in other areas. These processes carry over from childhood and impact upon the adult brother relationship. 11 liE' !' l B J l . ££922§1L12n__i6A. Younger brothers in a family will tend to identify with and learn their role in the family from older brothers. Role theory suppdrts the hypothesis that interaction between two persons leads to assimilation of roles and to 21m the incorporation of elements of the role of the other into one's own role complex. Role modeling usually proceeds from older to younger. In Proposition #5 and 5A this dynamic was examined as regards cross-sex role learning. Proposition #6 specifically examined the function of "Identification" among siblings. and the dyadic relationships among all the sib- lings were classified by type of identification.‘ This data was presented and analyzed under Research Question #2. Chap. IV. The dynamic under scrutiny in Proposition 6a. was that same sex role learning takes place through identification and imitation. Brothers were asked if there were qualities and beha- viors possessed by their brothers which they sought to imitate. Imitation can be defined as "action that copies the action of another more or less exactly, with or without the intent to copy" (English and English 1958, p.253 as cited in Biddle» 1979. pp.43-44). Thus. in addition to the direct responses of brothers concerning their conscious knowledge of imitating a brother the data was analyzed for behavior imitation of the "unintended" kind. Imitation can occur through "contagion", "conformity" or "modeling" (Biddle 1979. PP.43-45). Williamoo A considerable amount of imitation occurred by the two younger brothers. The oldest led the way in athletics and education. and John and James followed along. All three brothers played the same organized sports, skied and pursued business careers. As John related, he couldn't 245 wait to get old enough to do what his older brother was doing. "I saw Blaine move through school and football, it made me want to try harder, to excel." The youngest brother said: "I admired everything they did. They were my older brothers. I wanted to be like them, follow in their foot- steps. All the things I got involved with they did before me." An element of being challenged by the older brother was present. John wanted to "try harder, excel" and James said "they were a challenge to me." A dynamic of healthy competition was present. Each older brother possessed some quality a younger brother wished he had or wanted to imi- tate. For John it was Blaine's decision making ability; for James it was his older brothers' ability to handle situa- tions with confidence. fitoyonoo Todd, the oldest. reported that "the younger brothers never wanted to be like me. They wanted to be themselves." Nevertheless, his youngest brother did iden- tify with him more by way of similarities in personality than in behavior. For Dennis (youngest) his "brothers set a model for me - I'm going to play baseball because Todd played." The second brother was content "at doing his own thing" and never sought to imitate his older brother. He was the one "envied" because he was "outgoing, tried every- thing and would be the best at it." Tomonnigno Each of the younger brothers has tried to imitate the oldest. Ivan admired and has tried to "handle people like Jim does", a quality he said "brings instant 246 respect." Doug as a child tried imitating Jim by boxing but found it didn't suit him. His next older brother possessed a "hard working nature and consistency at jobs," something Doug has tried to follow knowing that it pays off. Each younger brother, however, although identifying with an older brother, was different and has pursued different interests. Mitoloo The strongest imitation was Paul's imitation of Monk Their adolescent relationship put them into contin- ual interaction whereby Paul "looked up to Monk". He has imitated Monk in the areas of home life, organization of possessions, and care of cars. Paul also has done consider- able following of Bob in the areas of life interests and hobbies. Bob, the middle brother. said that when "growing up I always wanted to be like Monk but now we go our own ways." He still does try to imitate his brothers' hunting abilities. Conolooiono Identification and imitation of older brothers by younger brothers was found to exist especially in areas and activities outside of the family - education, sports, hobbies, careers or jobs. For the most part this was a process occurring primarily during childhood and ado- lescence. As to learning their role within the family by imitation or modeling an older brother the data doeS' not yield any firm findings. What appeared to occur relative to role in the family was what was discussed earlier under 247 Research Question #4. and Proposition #4 above. Each brother develops and makes his own role according to his personali- ty, and status within the family. Therefore Proposition #6A was reformulated to read: Younger brothers in a family will tend to imitate their older brothers in behaviors and activities outside the family environment, which they deem worthwhile for their own self-identity, primarily during childhood and adolescence but continuing to a lesser degree in adult- hood. I 'l !' Enooooition_#ooo Siblings who perceive themselves as emotionally close to a particular sibling will be more likely to imitate that sibling's behavior. Proposition 6A considered imitation based on position of only brothers. The present proposition considered the relationship between emotional closeness and imitation. Brothers and sisters were included for analysis. Williomoo John did not consider himself emotionally close to his older brother yet as was shown in Proposition #6A he followed in his brother's footsteps in a number of areas. The relationship between John and James was closer and James has imitated John as well as Blaine with whom he was not as close. Mitoloo, The emotional closeness which existed between Bob and Paul, and Paul and Monk has been repeatedly men- tioned. The imitation within each of these dyads was estab- lished in Proposition #6A. The youngest sister reported that she has a fond affection for her brothers and that Paul was closest to her. "He would take me around like a buddy." 248 She sought to imitate her brothers by achieving what they achieved: "good marriages and nice homes." Iomooniono For the most part the closeness among this group of siblings was never very emotional. Joan, the oldest sister, attempted to become more emotionally close with her brothers but at each attempt "they backed away from it." As a child Joan said she "wanted to imitate all of them." Each had something to of fer. but she has now rea- lized that "I am not them". and has put more emphasis on developing her own self independent of siblings. Toni, the youngest sister. most identified with and felt closest to Doug, but not to the extent of imitating him in any specific ways. The relationship was mutual for Doug but not to the point of imitation. It was more identifying with Toni's personality, ideas and her outlook on life. Stoyonoo As children it was Todd and Dennis who were emotionally close while Helen and Al were more on. their own. Now, as adults, Todd, Dennis, and Helen have enjoyed an equally close relationship. However, the data revealed no overt indication of imitation. Helen, the older sister, didn't remember any imitation going on among her brothers. and "I was definitely not being imitated by them." ABJEthnflA As was considered earlier the relationship between Carol and Dawn was conflictual for many years. Dawn "didn't want to imitate Carol at all. She was a "square." She turned instead to trying to do everything her younger brother did. acting the "Tomboy". With Joel she identified 249 and was very close. Carol, as oldest,"felt (she) had to set the example" for her younger sibs to imitate." As an adult however she finds herself trying to imitate both her younger siblings - "try to be strong like Dawn, and try to imitate Joel's perfectionism. He's always good at a job." Although he had only sisters Joel reported that he has tried to imitate them in a number of things. They modeled for him "responsibility for family, concern for other peop- le, and spending time with parents and grandparents." Joel has been close to both his sisters, and more emotionally close to Dawn. Conolnoiono Based on the data described above plus the combined data on closeness and identification the present proposition can be supported with some adaptation. It ap- pears that the type of identification between any two sib- lings has an additional impact relative to imitation. Closeness alone does not seem to explain it. Those siblings who have a "Fused" or "Hero Worship" type of identification with a sibling were more likely to be imitative of that sibling's behavior. This would include the relationship be- tween Bob and Paul, Paul and Monk, James and Blaine, and James and John. The one relationship of strong imitation which did not fall into either of these two categories presently was that of Dawn and Joel. However, during their teen years there was a strong "Hero Worship" of Joel by Dawn. Proposition #68 was reformulated as: 250 Adult brothers who perceive themselves as emotionally close and who have a "Fused" or "Hero Worship" type of identification relationship to a particular sibling during childhood will be more likely to imitate that sibling's behaviors even into early adult life with probably decreasing imitation with age and/or distance. filhlins_£9n£li£& Pj:oooj:_J.,,‘1.',,;Lon___fl_t Sibling conflict in adult years is more likely to exist when factors of parental favori- tism, family comparisons and intense rivalry among siblings exists in the family of origin during child- hood. Sibling conflict. especially among brothers (Adams 1968), has been shown to continue into adulthood (Form and Geschwenter, 1962; Troll 1975; Cicirelli 1981; Berezin 1977; and Ross and Milgram 1980). However, the overall findings indicate that there is a lessening of rivalry or conflict with age (Cicirelli 1982). In cases where adult sibling conflict does exist are there family history variables which could be indicative of poor relationships in adulthood? The present proposition considered three possible variables: 1) parental favoritism which usually results in the disfavored siblings feelng inferior or rejected, feelings which can carry over to adult life; 2) family comparisons which can undermine a person's sense of adequacy causing feelings of resentment toward a brother or sister; and 3) intense rival- ry which establishes a possible life-long dynamic of compte- titiveness thus inhibiting achievement of equality among siblings and acceptance of one's own uniqueness. Data was collected on the existence of childhood and adult conflicts, and on three possible intervening variables from both sibling and parental perspectives. In cases where 251 sibling conflict was mentioned as presently existing the family data was examined for the existence of any one of the three variables under consideration. This was repeated for reported conflicts during childhood and/or adolescence. Adult conflict was evident only among pairs of siblings in the Vitale and Tomourien families. The conflicts involved four sibling pairs, and in one of these pairs the conflict seemed more covert.(Vitale) litoloo It was reported in Chapter IV under the consi- deration of "Identification" that the present relationship between Bob and Monk Vitale was conflictual. As best that can be determined their conflict had its origins in late adolescence. Maternal favoritism of Bob existed during childhood as did paternal favoritism of Monk. Bob's push to achieve material status was most likely indicative of the 'competition he felt with Monk: "I was the first to buy a new car, to get married. and buy a home." (Bob) All of his siblings remarked that Bob only "buys the best." The exis- tence of comparisons during childhood was evident but it was difficult to determine if this factor was strong enough to occasion jealousy or resentments. No childhood or early teen years conflict was reported. A covert conflict existed between Monk and Paul. The nature of the conflict seemed to be more associated with a lessening of "hero worship" on Paul's part. As he came into his own as an adult he appeared to be asserting his indepen- dence from Monk. Some unexpressed jealousy on Monk's part 252 could be suggested given the situation of Paul taking Monk's place as "dad's right hand man." Also evident was Paul's reporting that as a child he was told he should be more like Monk. Bob said that in the areas of hunting and fishing Paul has surpassed Monk in skills. Iomonniono Within the Tomourien family minor adult conflicts existed between Jim and Doug and Doug and Joan. These conflicts centered around disagreements with Doug's lifestyle and friends. As youngest brother, Doug was much favored by his dad because Doug liked to go around with his dad doing chores on the ranch. None of the siblings reported that comparisons were made between them. As children and adults competition existed. On her part Joan's conflict with Doug seemed to stem from the fact that he was favored by their father and she was shunned, and also that Doug was not achievng his potential. Because Jim played the role of "surrogate father" looking out for everyone, he experienced conflict trying to keep Doug on the "right path". The present conflicts between Jim and Doug and Joan and Doug appeared to be what's left of a much wider conflictual scene during childhood and adolescence in which only Doug and Toni, and Doug and Ivan were not in conflict at some time or another. Based on limited data it could be conjec- tured that the father related to the younger sibs (Doug, Toni and Ralph) more favorably than to the older ones thus setting up some jealousy patterns which have slowly been in a process of dissolving with lifecycle changes. It was Joan 253 who spoke most directly to the question of paternal favori- tism of the younger siblings. For Joan it was also a ques- tion of being part of a "sexist" family in which the brothers were favored over the sisters. In order to further examine this proposition on sibling conflict, childhood and adolescent conflicts that have not persisted into adulthood were analyzed for the presence of the variables of interest: favoritism, rivalry, and compari- sions. Childhood and adolescent conflict existed among the Stevens brothers and Richmond sisters. Within the Stevens family there existed strong competition on the part of A1 with his brothers, and a slight feeling on his brothers" part that he was favored at times. No comparisons were reported. In the Richmond case the predominant variable creating the environment for conflict was 'comparisions' being made between Carol and Dawn. In addition the feeling was present that Carol was favored by their parents because she was held up to them as a model to be imitated. A model both of them rejected. 32on_<:,J._n_s__;Lon_L Based solely on the history of two case families where adult sibling conflict existed the proposi- tion can tentatively be reformulated for further extensive testing to read: Sibling conflict in adult years among brother is more likely to exit when a combination of any two or more of the following factors existed during childhood and/or adolescence in the family of origin: parental favori- tism. sibling rivalry and sibling jealousy. 254 Family comparisons cannot be ruled out entirely from the proposition based on previous research (Arnstein 1979). but may be embedded within parental favoritism and covertly implied. Summanx Within Chapter VIII the results and analysis of the seven propositions and nine sub-propositions used to orga- nize the data for analysis were considered. Each proposi- tion was examined in light of the present study's data, previous research, and theory where possible. Following the analysis of the data pertaining to each proposition a deci- sion was made as to whether the proposition held up to available data. Where it did the proposition was retained. In cases where the data was not supportive the proposition was reformulated to more closely reflect the data results. Each proposition whether original, reformulated, or new will need to stand the scrutiny of further research. It must be noted that the data upon which these propositions were analyzed was retrospective and as such has limitations. Longitudinal data, tracking the shifts in the relationships among brothers, would provide a stronger data base upon which to judge these propositions. The propositions as they were retained or reformulated are listed below. A designation of 'original', 'reformu- lated, or 'new" was given to each. 255 £1oooo1t1on_filfi: The degree of sibling affect among broth- ers in adult life that emerges from sibling interaction is influenced by the following variables: sex, age, spacing of siblings, early childhood affect and degree of family cohe- siveness. ORIGINAL Enooooition__£lo: Closeness between brothers will undergo increases and decreases over the lifespan. REFORMULATED Enooooition_£lo5 Closeness or affection. as expressed among brothers, will most likely be described in terms of mutual aid and shared activity. REFORMULATED ELooooition_ilo: The degree of sibling affect in adult life that emerges from sibling interaction is influenced by the degree of family cohesiveness. REFORMULATED W: EL IMINATED £noooo1tion__£l£: Closeness among brothers in adult life after marriage may be maintained or enhanced when sisters- in-law both understand and are supportive of the importance of such brother relationships. NEW Enooooition_#2: Sibling roles are not clearly scripted by norms and it can be expected that both within and among families there will be found both low consensus and ambigui- ty concerning the nature and meaning of the brother role in the family. ORIGINAL 256 finooooioion_£3: Expectations concerning the role of broth- ers in the family will be expressed by some mental set of ideas which may or may not have their origins in the fami- ly's loyalty and justice systems. REFORMULATED £noooo1t1on_ifi: As personality attributes, status (age, sex) attributes, and family environment vary brothers will utilize such attributes and key environmental factors to establish a unique "identity" within the family. REFORMULATED Enooooition__£5A: Having a strong identity as a brother within the family system can facilitate the exchange of goods and services among brothers which may serve to build the brother relationship. REFORMULATED Enooooition_#4£; Labels given to siblings during childhood by parents or by each other, and which have the effect of summing up the individual's personality or way of being in the family can carry over into the adult years characteri- zing all or some of the dyadic sibling relationships. REFORMULATED Exopooition_£flo: The experience of being a brother in the a family will vary according to the structure of the sibling constellation and sibling position. ORIGINAL £noooo1t1on_#§; Assimilation of sex roles in the sibling complex is facilitated by the presence of opposite sex members with the greatest impact being from elder to younger siblings. ORIGINAL 257 Enooooition_#5g: Brothers with an older sister will develop more expressive or feminine personality characteristics than brothers without older sisters. ORIGINAL Enooooition_io: "Selfhood" as a brother is fostered by the dual process of identifying with a brother and/or sister in certain areas and rejecting or differentiating from them in other areas. These processes carry over from childhood and adolescence and impact upon the adult relationships. REFORMULATED Erongsitign_£6A: Younger brothers in a family will tend to imitate their older brothers in behaviors and activities primarily during childhood and adolescence but continuing to a lesser degree during early adulthood, outside the imme- diate family environment which they deem worthwhile for their own self-identity. REFORMULATED Enooooition_1ofl: Adult brothers who perceive themselves as emotionally close and who have a "fused" or "hero worship" type of identification relationship to a particular brother during childhood will more likely imitate that brother's behaviors even into early adulthood with probably decreasing imitation with age and/or distance. REFORMULATED £3oooo1t1on__#1; Sibling conflict in adult years among brothers is more likely to exist when a combination of any two or more of the following factors existed during child- hood in the family of origin: parental favoritism, sibling rivalry, and sibling jealousy. REFORMULATED 258 CHAPTER IX SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS. LIMITATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH Winnings The present study sought to explore the nature of the adult brother role within the family. To this end five case studies of complete families (2 generations) were undertaken through personal interviews with each member of the family. In addition to the two interviews two research instruments (the Personality Attributes Questionnaire and the Adult Brother Scale) were administered to all subjects (n=28). Role theory served as the study's conceptual framework. The data was considered within an overall ecological perspective in which it was recognized that each family possessed its own behavioral environment within which members .interact with one another in the development of their family roles. The study was conducted in a small city within the Inter- mountain region of the western United States during the period of January to June 1982. The study was conducted with three purposes in mind: 1) to investigate the dimensions of the adult brother role within the family, 2) to explore in a preliminary way, the 259 meaning which family members associated with the extra- familial use of the term 'brother', and 3) to provide family professionals with additional information on the family role of the adult brother based on case study material. More specifically four objectives. and five research questions guided the research investigation. The objectives of the study were: 1. to examine the nature, meaning, functions and expec- tations of the role of brothers in the family system through a case study of five families; 2. to identify the consequent effects of the brother role on extra-familial relationships with men and women during adulthood; 3. to explore the individual perspective on the extra- familial social definitions and meanings of the term "brother"; 4. to develop hypotheses for future research concerning the role of brother within the family system and extra-familial social systems. W In order to reach the objectives in this investigation of the adult brother role within the family system. the following questions were pursued: 1. What does it mean to be a brother within a family? 2. What are the functions that brothers perform within the family system? 260 3. What are the individual and familial expectations asso- ciated with the role of being a brother? 4. What do the male siblings, included in this study, per- ceive as the influence of their siblings on their role development as brothers and on their interpersonal rela- tionships with men and women in adult life? 5. What do family members mean when they use the term "brother"? In order to facilitate the accomplishment of Objective #4, the "development of hypotheses for future research", a number of propositions were used to both organize the data and serve as a basis for hypothesis construction. An edited life-history or case study method was used in the gathering of the data. Five families from an original pool of 66 families, obtained from community leaders, were purposively selected, and consented to participate in the study. Selection of the families was based on seven criteria: 1. the family must have more than two living siblings. age 20 and older, at least one of whom is a male; 2. at least one parent must be alive and available for interviewing; 3. the majority of siblings must live within a reason- able distance for accessibility for personal inter- views (reasonable distance is here defined as no more than 3 hours driving time one way); 261 4. age differences between any two siblings may not exceed five years and no two siblings may be the same age (i.e. twins); 5. adult siblings to be interviewed must have had both natural parents present during their childhood formative years (birth - 12 years); 6. all siblings within the family must be blood re- lated; 7. willingness to participate in both interviews and complete all instruments. Twenty families of the 66 families contacted met all seven criteria. These 20 families were stratified according to five sibling constellation patterns. One family in each group was selected for participation. In all, 27 out of 28 family members were interviewed with the use of a tape recorder: 9 parents, 13 brothers, and 6 sisters. Family size ranged from 5 to 6 members with an average of 4 sib- lings per family. Four of the families each had three brothers. The fifth family had only one brother with two older sisters. Age of the brothers ranged from 21 to 39 years old. The nature of the adult brother role within the family was defined according to the meaning, functions, roles and expectations associated with the brother studied. Based on the data associated with meaning, functions, roles and ex- pectations, it was the preliminary conclusion that the fun- damental nature of the adult brother role in the family was 262 that "he be there when needed" in whatever way he was needed, be it physical or emotional. Not stated but seem- ingly implied was that a brother be available willingly because he wanted to be. The data seemed to indicate the existence of a definite set of expectations for adult brot- hers. The expectations primarily focused upon behaviors which were related to family survival. Brothers and sisters both looked to a brother for physical and emotional help in handling personal and family life situations. Conclusions Based on the findings of this exploratory study of five families on the adult brother role in the family, a number of preliminary conclusions were reached. The conclusions were divided according to those reached based upon the research questions and those based on the research proposi- tions. A third section lists those propositions which could serve as hypotheses in future research on adult brothers. Conclusionsbasedmfisseamhw 1) Mooning, o£.a onothon, (Question #1) The one response which was given almost universally as to the meaning of a brother was: a brother is someone who is always there when you need him. He can be depended upon. He is that "close friend", "another self" who is loyal and trust- worthy. This "being there" came through as the funda- mental nature of what it means to be a brother. The 263 2) expression encompasses a number of other statements made by siblings about the meaning of a brother. A brother is: a companion, the ultimate friend, someone with whom to share ideas and activities. It was important for those brothers interviewed that their brothers be: some- one they can talk to. share activities with, be a pal or playmate, a real close companion. Eonotiono of a,Bnotnon. (Question #2) Five of the six functions suggested by Bank and Kahn (1975) aS' operative among siblings were explored relative to brothers. It was concluded that these functions were indeed operative, and as Bank and Kahn specify "identification and differentiation" were the "glue" of the sibling bond. The process of identification and differentiation proved to be the most helpful for understanding and analyzing the dynamics of the brother relationships. It was found that when at least one brother within the sibling system maintained a "mutually independent" type of relationship to his other brothers he provided the needed stimulus for challenge and growth producing change in the rela- tionship system. As long as one brother ceased to remain "static" the brother constellation system was kept in motion. The function of direct service among adult brothers was found to be the second most operative function. Broth- ers kept their relationships active by providing var- 264 3) 4) ious types of help to one another. This function could be enlarged to a larger function called "support". The expectation of "being there when needed" stressed the importance of a brother being dependable. support- tive, helpful. This seemed to indicate the positing of an additional function which has been named "sup- port". The data revealed this as important and the dynamic of Support appeared different from "direct service" in that the aspect of meeting a sibling's emotional needs was met by the function of support. Direct service has more of an exchange of goods and services function among siblings. Elflfifilfliiflnfi OI adult DLQLhQLS. (Question #3) It was concluded that the primary expectation of a brother was that he "be there when needed". in whatever way he was needed, be it physical or emotional, and that his "being there when needed" was with a willing attitude. In this way he fulfilled a needed support function within the family. Infloonoo of onothono ano_s1otono on a brother's role development. (Question #4) Sibling influence on a bro- ther's role development was primarily covert in this study. The various roles performed by brothers within the family--"responsible one", "protector", "mediator", "instigator", "information provider". and "humorist"-- were found to be more a function of personality and in some cases sibling position than of direct sibling 265 5) influence. What siblings seemed to do was to reinforce a particular brother's role by 'looking to' a brother to act according to his role. In this way it could be said that siblings cooperated in a brother's role deve- lopment through an interplay of behaviors. This dyna- mic of cooperation and reinforcement with a brother's role development seems to strengthen the concept of "role making" indicating that the process of "role making" is interactive. Infienognoonal_ Rolationohioo. (Question #5) It was concluded that sisters have an important and influen- tial role to play in helping their brothers become "sensitized" to women's feelings and in achieving a comfortableness in being around women. This influence became most overt during the dating period in a brother's life. Brothers fulfilled a similar function for their sisters in helping them understand and relate to men better. They provided a realistic role model for their sisters which aided sisters in understanding the needs of men thus helping them in their interper- sonal relationships with men. Although a sister's relationship with men may have been more real and understanding because of a brother's influence this was no guarantee that her interpersonal relationships with men would be satisfactory or successful. Two sisters who spoke highly of a brother's influence had been divorced and remarried, and another was experiencing 266 6) marital difficulties at the time of the interviews. Positive brother relationships do not appear sufficient for success in marriage, and other factors need to be considered. WWMWM magnum Onganizationo. (Question #6) Sonnogate_onothono, It was concluded that for brothers surrogate brother relationships were close but not as close as a blood brother relationship. They lacked the expectation of "being there when needed". The estab- lishment of a surrogate brother relationship seemed to depend upon a 'need' on the part of a brother. Surrogate brothers were found to be an extremely im- portant part of the lives of sisters who enjoyed such relationships. Surrogate brothers provided these sis- ters with an experience of intimacy in sharing without sexual involvement. They were men these sisters could "really talk with" and persons who "listen and under- stand". §ooiol_ mooning. Subjects were able to recognize a social meaning to the term 'brother'. It was concluded that the term had two dimensions: personal and univer- sal. The personal dimension was described as "camaraderie, a special friendship involving a caring and sharing with another human being." In the universal dimension the term signified equality. and a recognition of our common humanity. 267 ELQththQfi ongonizotiono. Brotherhood organizations were found to be of little importance in the lives of the brothers interviewed. It was concluded that when a brother had a satisfying relationship with a blood brother the need was not present to go outside the family to an organizational setting for "camar- derie" and "some kind of closeness and intimacy." It was also concluded that this question could more effec- tively be considered by studying the family histories of very active members of fraternal organizations. Wmfidmww The following conclusions can be advanced based on the data associated with the research propositions. 1) All things being equal relationships among brothers were closer than relationships between brothers and sisters. (Proposition #1) a 2) Brothers closest in age were more likely to have an affection for each other than were brothers spaced apart or distant in age. (Proposition 1A) 3) Closeness among brothers was most likely expressed through mutual aid and shared activity. (Propostion 1B) 4) Family cohesiveness was found to provide a necessary environment for the development of close brother rela- tionships. (Proposition #1) 268 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) Sisters-in-law who were understanding and supportive of brother relationships were found to be influential in helping brothers maintain and even strengthen their brother bond. (Proposition 1D) Family members do possess certain consensus and clarity as to the nature and meaning of the adult brother role. (Proposition #2) Expectations of adult brothers held by family members were expressed by some mental set of ideas which may associated with the family's loyalty and justice systems. (Proposition #3) Brothers do utilize their personality and status (age. sex) attributes, and take advantage of the family en- vironment to establish a unique identity within the family. (Proposition #4) The exchange of goods and services among brothers was facilitated by a brother possessing a strong identity of being a brother within the family. (Proposition #4A) Labels given to brothers in childhood, which "sum up" that individual's personality. can carry over into the adult years characterizing. if not molding or limiting, all or some of that brother's dyadic sibling relation- ships. This was not found to be true of nicknames which generally were used as shortened forms of ad- dress, historically bound designations of behavior or appearance, or as a friendly tease. (Proposition #4B) 269 11) 12) 13) 14) 15) 16) The experience of being a brother in a family varied according to the structure of the sibling constellation and sibling position. (Proposition #4C) Enough evidence was found to conclude that siblings do have an impact on one another's sex role development, and that the directionality was cross-sex. However, the sample was too small to make any firm conclusion relative to the directionality of elder to younger. (Proposition #5 and 5A) "Selfhood" as a brother was found to be fostered by the dual processes of identification and differentiation. (Proposition #6) ' Imitation of older by younger brothers was found to be primarily a childhood and adolescent phenomenon, and principally in activity areas outside the family. Some degree of imitation may continue into adulthood. The relationship between closeness to a brother and imitation of his behaviors was found to be qualified by the type of identification pattern between them. In cases of "fused" and "hero worship" types of identifi- cation, imitation of an older brother's behavior was more likely. (Proposition #6B) Sibling conflict in adult years among brothers was found to more likely to exist when a combination of parental favoritism, sibling rivalry, or sibling jeal- ousy existed during childhood and/or adolescence. (Proposition #7) 270 WMWW Two quantitative instruments were employed in this study: the Personality Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ) and the Adult Brother Scale (ABS). The results of both instru- ments were compared with the interview data and were used to assess the personality types of the brothers studied, and various characteristics possibly associated with brothers. The PAQ yielded limited information in helping to ad- dress the overall research problem of the adult brother role. The instrument enabled a personality designation for each brother to be made. Considerable divergence (62$) existed between Self and Other Family member mean scores. Having an Androgynous and /or Feminine personality had lit- tle to do with whether a brother had an older, younger, or no sister at all. Being Androgynous may have enabled bro- thers to be more flexible in their role enactment to meet both physical and emotional needs of their siblings. This possibility was not precisely tested. An overall assessment of the behaviors engaged in by those brothers who were Androgynous and/or Feminine appeared, however, to indicate greater instrumental and expressive role flexibility. The ABS was used for the first time in this study. It was concluded that. for the most part, the dynamics implicit within the ABS scores on the five items were representative of the relationship dynamics among the brothers and sisters as described in the interview data. The results were clear enough and reflective enough of present adult sibling 271 relationships to warrant further testing of the instrument and the inclusion of its use in future research on adult siblings. The items on the ABS. however, cannot be directly associated with brothers only. The instrument's designation as an Adult Brother Scale should be changed to an Adult Sibling Scale. In addition, the instrument was limited to a description of the present relationship between any two siblings. No historical view was possible using the instru- ment in its present form. The instrument's utility would be increased by a format which includes the assignment of value scores for at least three separate lifecycle stages among younger adult subjects--childhood, adolescence, and adult- hood. If used for an older population of siblings the lifecycle stages could be increased appropriately. However. adding an historical dimension to the instrument would in- troduce a certain limitation to the data. Data obtained on the past would be retrospective and involve problems of recall, changes in perspective, feelings and attitudes. which would need to be taken into consideration for analysis. WW An objective of this study was to "develop hypotheses for future research" concerning the role of adult brothers within the family system and extra-familial social system. To this end a number of propositions were explored with the intent that some would receive sufficient support from the 272 data to warrent proposing them as hypotheses in future research. As reported in Chapter 8 some of the propositions were supported in their original formulation and others were reformulated to better reflect the data findings. Because of the exploratory nature of the study the propostions, whether original, reformulated or new, should be advanced for future research on adult brothers. The present articu- lation of these propositions should be regarded as in pro- cess toward greater clarification for understanding brother relationships. They need to be tested with larger samples and more precise and quantifiable instruments. A larger survey on brothers similar to the type of study done by Fischel (1979) on sister relationships would advance our knowledge considerably. Such research is however very ex- pensive and time consuming to conduct. Those propositions for which support was found are listed below as theoretical hypotheses. Propositions which contain multiple variables were divided up for the formula- tion of these hypotheses. Not all of the propositions were able to be formulated into hypotheses. Several of the proposition considered such abstract concepts as "self- hood", "identity", and "personality attributes" which are difficult to measure. Further development will need to occur on these propositions before they can be considered for hypothesis testing. 273 Hypothesis #1: The degree of sibling affect among adult brothers will to be greater when they are closer in age. Hypothesis #2: A close relationship between brothers during childhood will result in a greater close- ness among brothers in adulthood than when there was little or no closeness in childhood. Hypothesis #3: The degree of sibling affect among adult brothers will be greater when family cohe- siveness was present during childhood than when there was no family cohesiveness pre- sent during childhood. Hypothesis #4: The degree of support and understanding a wife has of her husband's relationships with his brothers will be positively related to the continued closeness among brothers in adult life. Hypothesis #5: Instances of mutual aid and shared activi- ties will be more numerous among adult bro- thers who have a close affection for one another. Hypothesis #6: Clarity about a brother's role in the family will be greater in families which have a consensus about the meaning of a brother. Hypothesis #7: Exchanges of goods and services will be greater between brothers who possess a close or partial identification with each other. 274 Hypothesis #8: Brothers with an older sister will develop more feminine personality characteristics than brothers with no sisters or only young- er sisters. Hypothesis #9: Imitation of an older brother's behaviors by a younger brother will decrease with age and differentiation. Hypothesis #10: Brothers who have a "fused" or "hero wor- ship" type of identification with a particu- lar brother in childhood or adolescence will continue to imitate that brother in adult- hood. Hypothesis #11: Sibling conflict among adult brothers will exist when there was parental favoritism during childhood. Hypothesis #12: Sibling conflict among adult brothers will exist when there was intense sibling rivalry during childhood. g 1' l'Ji! The nature of the present study was exploratory and from the beginning it was recognized that generalization of the findings to populations beyond the sample studied would be very limited. At least two factors precluded generaliza- bility to brothers beyond this sample. First, the selection criteria limited the type of family that could be considered for participation-- only those families with blood siblings, 275 who had no more than five years separating any two siblings, and who lived within a small geographical area from one another. The generation of siblings was also narrowly spe- cified to include siblings between the ages of 20 and approximately 40 years of age. Second, the final selection of subject families was purposive and not random. Thus, caution needs to be advised in inferring this study's findings and conclusions beyond the families within the study. Without a much larger and more diverse population base. and a wider variety of families, the findings and conclusions can only be said to be true for the families included in the study, or families who possess similar characteristics to the families in this study. The research propositions as they have been kept or reformulated were advanced for further research efforts based on a sample of only five families; five families whose siblings and parents were in rather unusually close physical proximity to one another. A Cornfield-Tukey argument could be made. however. to extend a generalization of this study's findings to similar families who meet the criteria and population characteris- tics of the families described in this research. Generali- zability then might be extended to populations of brothers and sisters who are middle class. blood related, and who live in a small city within the intermountain region of the United States. The sampling criteria would also need to be met. 276 Limitations The present study, and its findings and conclusions, were affected by the existence of several limitations. Methodological limitations existed and were considered in Chapter II and are not taken into consideration in this chapter. Both sample size and the types of families included in the study limited what was gained from the research effort. A limitation of five families narrowed the data base upon which to evaluate the research questions and propositions. The types of families, given the sampling criteria, limited the possible population sampled to fairly typical intact families of only blood siblings. The adult brother role within families of adoption, remarriage, and half-siblings was not possible given the scope of the study. Such other types of families would most likely have yielded different variations of perspective on the adult brother role. This limitation retricted the generalizability of the study's conclusions to brothers within a particular type of family structure. Conducting research in a solo fashion was a limitation in this study. It was realized time and again that such research. with its mountains of data, would have been enhanced with a team research effort. Such a team approach would have served to stimulate continual question- ing of the data, as well as clarification, and cross-ferti- lization of ideas about what was being discovered in the data. Some of the impact of this limitation was minimized by long distance contact and verbal interchanges with 277 another researcher specializing in the area of adult sibling relationships. An additional impact of the limitation of solo research was in the interpretation of the data. Con- ducting the actual interviews, transcribing the tapes, organizing the data, a certain bias may have entered into the analytical process. Having personal and repeated con- tact with the subjects both provided insights into the data but may also have blinded the researcher to some objective facts. The impact of subjectivity in data analysis and its interpretation needs to be stated. As much as possible this limitation was addressed in three ways: 1) by being aware of this possible bias; 2) by continually asking clarifying questions during the interview as to what was heard and understood by the researcher; and 3) by including numerous quotations from the interviews in the text to substantiate conclusions that were reached. In addition, during the analysis period, the handling of this limitation was facili- tated by continuously cross checking each family member's data. The research methdology of interviewing all the family members imposed a natural limitation of confidentiality. What was learned through one member could not be directly corroborated by asking another member to provide his or her perspective on a particular item of information. This re- sulted in some instances of unanswered questions or ambi- guity about some of the data. Some of the impact of this limitation was minimized by asking the same series of ques- 278 tions of all members. However, future research efforts could address this limitation by providing for a post-data analysis interview of selected cases where unanswered ques- tions existed or where clarification was necessary. A final limitation which diminished during the course of the study was the factor of this researcher being a Catholic priest. In the very beginning of the research project this factor was seen as somewhat confusing to a number of subjects because of their own role expectations of what a Catholic priest should be involved in. Wmmw The findings and conclusions reached in this present study of the adult brother role in the family can be used both to strengthen this study's research design if repli- cated, and to identify possible areas for future research studies. Since this study was exploratory it was not de- signed to fully address every topic area in depth. Particu- lar research projects outlined below would allow for a more indepth consideration of specific areas. memmmw 1) It was concluded that the function of "identification"; as developed by Bank and Kahn, was key to helping to understand the dynamics operative among the brothers studied. Bank and Kahn's development of this function in their 1982 publication, Tho Sioling Bono, appeared in 279 run—- 2) 3) print after the present study was designed and executed. If replicated the descriptive phrases used by Bank and Kahn (see Table 4.1) for each "Type of Relationship" should be incorporated into a written instrument. Sub- jects themselves would then be directly defining the type of relationship they have with each of their bro- thers. Only the descriptive phrases should be used, not the identification types. It was concluded that a seventh function should be added to Bank and Kahn's list of six. This function was identified as "Support". It was the consensus of a majority of the subjects that brothers provided a "sup- port" function within the family through their availabi- lity to help when needed, be it physical or emotional. It is this area of emotional need for support which delineates this new function from that of "direct ser- vice" which focuses more on the physicalneed areas involving exchanges of help. It was concluded that the Adult Brother Scale should be renamed the Adult Sibling Scale with some modifications. Although it did not discriminate very well between bro- ther/ brother and brother/sister relationships it did reflect the relationship dynamics obtained from direct interviewing. Based on this strength it should be modi- fied to obtain an historical perspective on each sibling relationship. It could then be tested to check its ability to provide a lifecycle perspective on adult 280 4) 5) sibling relationships. In the analysis of sibling affect the additional vari- able of "marriage effect" was found in some cases to influence either positively or negatively adult brother affect. In order to further explore this effect. any future replication of this study should include the interviewing of sisters and brothers-in-law. Although they are part of the family system through marriage they are not as emotionally bonded to the system as brothers and sisters would be. Possibly not possessing the same degree of loyalty to the family they could add a more objective and maybe unbiased perspective on the brother relationships under consideration and their own impact on them. Qualitative research involving life history material entails certain problems of validation because the re- searcher relys upon retrospective information and sub- jective information and subjective perceptions which may be distorted. It is difficult to measure the distor- tion. Future research of a qualitative nature into the adult brother role and relationships should employ some objective instrument to measure openness and ridigity of family members. Such a measurement might be helpful as an analytic tool in assessing the quality of the data obtained. Suspicion of distortion or misinformation could be examined or explained in light of a member's openness or rigidity. 281 Wmmwm 1) 2) 3) In Chapter 5 the suggestion was made that a Checklist instrument on expectations of the brother role be de- veloped for a broader study of the adult brother role in the family. Various studies could be conducted in the testing and improvement of such an instrument. An ini- tial attempt at such an instrument is included in Appendix L. From a theoretical perspective the concepts of "loyalty" and "justice" as developed by Boszormenyi-Nagy and Spark (1973) proved germinally helpful in understanding the expectations of brothers in their family roles. Future research efforts employing these concepts more expli- citely may provide a stronger basis upon which to deter- mine the origins of familial expectations of brothers. It was concluded that the influence of brothers and sisters on a brother's role development in the family seemed primarily covert. Added to this conclusion was the observation that what siblings seemed to do for one another was reinforce a brother's role by cooperating in its enactment. Siblings tended to look to another sib- ling to act in a certain way and through an interplay of behaviors cooperate with and reinforce role functions. Future research should focus on this dynamic of coopera- tion/reinforcement in a brother's role development as this dynamic relates to the process of "role making". 282 4) 5) The influence of brothers on sisters in regard to a sis- ter's interpersonal relationships with men was adequate- ly shown under the findings of research question #5. Those sisters who spoke most strongly about getting along better with men because of their brothers also evidenced the most overt problems within their marriages or had been divorced. Future research could be conducted studying the interplay between the strength of the in- fluence of brothers on sisters, and future marital satisfaction and success among sisters. In assessing the brother/sister relationship both the Adult Sibling Scale and Bank and Kahn's "Patterns of Identification" might be helpful to use. Related to #4 was the conclusion that. when present. the surrogate brother relationships can be a very important part of a sisters experience of interpersonal intimacy with men without sexual involvement. Sisters reported that their surrogate brothers were men with whom they could "really talk with" and were persons who "listened and understood." However, the sisters who spoke most intensely about enjoying such relationships and how they they helped them to understand men better were either divorced, remarried, or experiencing some measure of marital difficulties at the time of the study. A study of surrogate brother relationships, and their qualities and effects on a woman's future adjustment in marriage would be worthwhile. In complement to the surrogate 283 6) 7) 8) brother role, an examination of the role of surrogate sisters and their impact on brothers would be beneficial. The existence and importance of surrogate brothers was evident among ~a number of the brothers interviewed. Future research efforts should examine the etiology. history, activities, maintainance and functions of such relationships among brothers so as to increase our un- derstanding of how extra-familial brother-type rela- tionships develop and function, and what meaning they have for brothers. Membership in brotherhood organizations was not found to be prevalent among the brothers studied. The one case examined revealed a family history lacking in a close or permanent brother relationship. This one case involved a subject in the parent generation. Since none of the brothers in the sibling generation studied had any strong affiliation with brotherhood organizations there may exist a generational effect which would need to be considered in future research. Future research surroun- ding membership in in brotherhood organizations should study the family histories of men who are very active members. In such a study different types of membership--benevolent, social, and fraternal--should be kept in mind. It was found that triadic brother relationships eviden- ced a certain instability and/or presence of conflict. 284 The strongest bonds were dyadic. The finding supported the generally observed phenomenon of group dynamics whereby individuals tend to form dyadic relationships. In future research this phenomenon should be explored in more detail and taken into account when sampling sibling constellations of various sizes. 9) The experience of this research supported the methodolo- gy of interviewing the entire sibling subsystem of a family. Perspectives of older and younger siblings on the nature of their sibling relationships were found to vary. Future research into the question of the adult brother role should follow a sampling methodology of obtaining the participation of all sibling members of the familiy. Where this is not possible though a per- sonal face to face interview data could be obtained through a telephone interview or written questionnaire. This is particularly important in families where there is an estranged or peripheral sibling member who could provide a totally other perspective on the family's system and relationship dynamics. In conclusion it can be stated that for the men in this study their brothers were important persons in their lives. They clearly felt a need for their brother(s) to be there when they needed them, thus creating a sense of security. Brothers provided for one another an important socialization experience within the family unit. It could even be said that the very connectedness that a brother experienced 285 within his family was maintained because of his ties to his brother(s). This connectedness is life-long and extends beyond the parent-child bond. After parents have died the family unit that remains is solely that of the sibling system. In drawing this chapter to a close numerous questions remain to be considered relative to future studies of adult brothers. Since only brothers who lived in close proximity to one another were interviewed for this study the exper- iences of adult brothers in other situations are still in need of exploration. What of brothers who are separated by distance? How do they fulfill their brother role? How are they supportive and available to each other? Separated by distance do they maintain a contact with each other which maintains and/or builds their relationship. And what of brothers who are estranged? Do they experience some kind of gap in their lives and long for a way to re-estbalish a bond which is part of their blood inheritance? What of males who do not have a brother. or of those who do but lack the fulfillment of the basic expectations surrounding the brother role? Who is there for them when there is that need for someone "to be there?" The brief consideration of surrogate brothers and mem- bership in brotherhood organizations opens a whole area of questions of a more theoretical nature. From a theoretical perspective is there a fraternal dimension to all human relationships which for most persons remains unrealized? 286 Prior to the advent of the nuclear family. the designation of "brother" extended to a broader kinship network, and in earlier centuries to a tribal complex. Are we now, within a nuclear age, moving toward a new dimension of realizing that "we are all brothers?" If we are moving towards this new dimension. what does this truly mean? At a time when family members are living at greater distances from one another many individuals create "family networks" of friends within neighborhoods or in places of employment. Aside from some universal concept of brotherhood is there a more concrete need within humanity for an experience of brother relation- ships lbeyond the family? If there is such a need then it will be those persons who know and experience within them- selves a capacity to be a brother, or who need a brother, who could lead us into a realization of the fraternal dimen- sion of human relationships. 287 APPENDICES APPENDIX A CALL RECORD SHEET APPENDIX A CALL RECORD SHEET ID# Referred by Name Address _ Phone # , Number of Children Age Sex City and State of Residence SW“) 0\ UT 0 o \OCD-q 10. Ethnic Background Contact Date of First Phone Call Follow Up Date Notes 288 APPENDIX B CONSENT FORM APPENDIX B CONSENT FORM I have freely consented to participate in a scientific study being conducted by Rev. Jospeh Tortorici.O.P., under the supervision of Dr. D. M. Borland, Assistant Professor. Department of Family and Child Ecology. College of Human Ecology. Michigan State University. The purposes of the project have been explained to me and I understand the explanation that has been given as well as what my participation will involve. I have agreed to the use of a tape recorder in the interview sessions and under- stand that the contents of the tapes will be held confiden- tial and will be erased at the conclusion of the study. I understand that I am free to discontinue participation in the study at any time without penalty. I understand that the results of the study will be treated in strict confidence and that I will remain anonymous. Final results of the study will be made available to me at my request. I am willing to participate in this research on the adult brother role in the family. Signed: Date 289 APPENDIX C EXPLANATORY LETTER APPENDIX C EXPLANATORY LETTER I have recently had the opportunity to meet with your (father, mother. brother. or sister) to discuss with them a research project on families which I am conducting. I am interested in knowing more about what it means to be a brother in a family, and how brothers and sisters influence one another. It is my belief that brothers hold an impor- tant position in family life, and that you can personally assist me in understanding a brother's role in the family. Your assistance in this reserach is very valuable and hope- fully would be a satisfying experience for you knowing that you have helped to advance scientific knowledge about family life. knowledge that can be beneficial both to families and family professionals. In a week or so I will be calling you by telephone to further explain and discuss the study. and answer any ques- tions you may have. At that time I will explain what your involvement in the study would entail. Enclosed is an introductory letter signed by your parents. I have fully explained the study to them and they have consented to participate. I look forward to our telephone conversation and hopefully your participation in the research study. Sincerely. Rev. Joseph Tortorici. 0.P. 290 APPENDIX D LETTER OF INTRODUCTION APPENDIX D LETTER OF INTRODUCTION We (I) have recently met with Rev. Joseph Tortorici. a Ph.D student at Michigan State University in East Lansing, Michigan, who has moved to Pocatello to continue his studies. He has discussed with us (me) a research study he is conducting on the role of brothers in the family. We (I) have agreed to participate in his research project and would hope that you will also agree to participate. For his study to be successful he needs to interview each of the adult members of our immediate family. Reverend Tortorici will be contacting you soon to explain his study and request your participation. Signed Date 291 APPENDIX E TOPIC AREAS FOR INTERVIEWS APPENDIX E TOPIC AREAS FOR INTERVIEWS In preparation for our interviews I have outlined a few of the topic areas which will be considered. You might wish to take some time to think about these before the actual interviews. 1. Early family memories: special events which you shared with parents, brothers and sisters, relatives and friends. 2. Personality characteristics of your parents. siblings; similarities and differences. 3. Interpersonal relationships with siblings and peers: namely. how did you get along as children, as teenagers, and how do you get along now as adults. 4. What expectations do you have of your brothers and/or sisters? 5. What does it mean to be a brother in a family? 6. What does it mean to you to have a brother? 7. In what ways have your siblings influenced your life? 8. The social meaning of the term "brother" and "brotherhood." 9. What did your parents teach or pass on to you about how to get along with your brothers and sisters? I look forward to our meeting and interviews. Thank you for participating. Rev. Joseph Tortorici. 0.P. 292 APPENDIX F INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR PARENTS 10. 11. APPENDIX F INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR PARENTS Each family has a unique history. Please tell me your own family of origin's history as best you can. Where were your parents from? Where did they settle? What occupations did they engage in? Who are the members of your family? What would you identify as the unique characteristics of your family? How is your family similar to your spouse's family? How is it different? What words or images would you use to describe your parents? Starting with the oldest of your siblings please describe each of your brothers and sisters. What are they like? How would you describe the years of growing up with them? What do you think accounted for the type of relationship you had with your brothers and sisters while growing up? Were any of your brothers or sisters particularly influential in your life? Were there particular times when your brothers and sisters kept tabs on your behaviors. corrected you? Were there certain things (knowledge. skills. advice) that you learned which you passed on to your younger brothers or sisters? Were there certain things passed on to you? WE OFTEN HOLD EXPECTATIONS ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE. WE EXPECT THEM TO BEHAVE IN CERTAIN WAYS OR. EVEN POSSIBLY.THINK IN PARTICULAR WAYS. Were there certain expectations you had of your brothers? of your sisters? Do you think that there are particular expectations that family members had of brothers in your family? We sometimes hear someone say about another person - "He is like a brother to me." Were there persons in your life who have been or are like a brother to you? What is your relationship with them like? 293 12. 13. 14. 15 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. Do you belong to any brotherhood type orgnization? e.g. Elks, Moose. Do (did) other members of your family? Why did you join? and what do you get from being a member? LET US NOW FOCUS THE NEXT SERIES OF QUESTIONS ON YOUR OWN CHILDREN. What words or images would you use to describe each of your children? Are there particular nicknames by which your children are now called which they were given in childhood, e.g. "the brain", "slow poke", "the brawn"? Do your children "take after" either of you in various ways? e.g. habits, personality traits, hobbies. interests. Have you ever compared any of your children with any of your own brothers or sisters? Sometimes a child thinks of himself/herself or one of his/her brothers or sisters as the favorite of mom or dad. Do you think this is true among your children? Have you ever found yourself comparing your children to one another? During their years at home how would you describe how they got along with one another? How did you expect them to behave toward one another? In what ways did you observe your children being competitive with each other? in what ways are they still competitive? (PROBE FOR WHAT THEY WERE COMPETITIVE OVER) Was their competition something of a rivalry between them? Were there certain expectations you had for your children? Do you still hold certain expectations for them? Are your expectations different for sons vs. daughters? What kinds of expectations do you think your children have for one another? How would you describe how your children interact with (get along) with one another today? (get specifics for each pair of siblings) 294 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. Do you feel that their relationships have changed over the years? What do you think brought about these changes you have mentioned? Can you recall any significant events which happened in your childrens' lives which have contributed to the way they relate to one another today? From everything you have said about your children and the way they grew up what do you think most contributed to the way they relate to one another presently? As best you can remember, how did your children get along with their friends in the neighborhood and at school when growing up? And presently,how would you describe their relationships with friends? For those of your children who are married has this factor changed their relationship with their brothers/sisters? At times people may refer to non-family members as brothers. e.g. in a Lodge, social group or in a church situation. As you understand the use of the term 'brother' with persons outside family membership what meaning does it have for you? 295 APPENDIX G INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR BROTHERS AND SISTERS 10. 11. 12. 13. APPENDIX C INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR SIBLINGS Let's begin by talking about your family and your child- hood. What was it like growing up at home? What were your parents like? What do you most admire about them? How would you describe each of your brother/sisters? How would you describe yourself? Are there certain qualities about each of your siblings that you admired when you were growing up? And now, are there certain qualities admired? Are there any qualities possessed by your siblings which you attempted to imitate as you were growing up? Are there any you still try to imitate? Are there qualities which you have that you see trying to be imitated by any of your brothers/sisters? Are there talents and interests possessed by each of your siblings which you have encouraged in the past, and in recent years have still encouraged? Are there talents and interests which you possess which your brothers/sisters encouraged in you in the past and even presently encourage? Are there particular nicknames which you use to refer to your brothers/sisters. e.g. "the brain", "slow poke"? Are there similarities and differences among you and your siblings? Do you ever remember being compared by your parents or relatives to any of your aunts or uncles? Do you ever remember being compared with one another? What was it like being the (oldest. youngest. middle) child in your family? Does being in this position have any practical effects on you today? What kinds of things did you do with your brothers when you were growing up? With your sisters? At home? Outside the home? How well did you get along together? 296 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. In what ways was there competition among you as children? Now as adults? What is the closest or happiest you have been with any of your brother and/or sisters? During childhood? During teen years? During your adult years? WE OFTEN HOLD EXPECTATIONS ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE. WE EXPECT THEM TO BEHAVE IN CERTAIN WAYS OR. EVEN POSSIBLY, THINK IN PARTICULAR WAYS. Were there certain expectations you had of your brothers/ sisters when you were growing up together? Are there certain expectations you have of your brothers/ sisters presently? Did your parents expect certain things of you? of your brothers? of your sisters? Do they still have certain expectations of each of you? What particular things did you do for your brother/sisters while you were growing up together? What kinds of things did they do for you while you were growing up? What particular things do you do for your brothers/ sisters now that you are adults? Now that you are adults what particular things do your brothers and sisters do for you? Does it have a special meaning for you to have had a brother? How would you express the meaning your brother(s) has for you? Did your brother(s) influence you in any way in life? goals? relationships with other people? values? What role in the family do you play? Your brother(s)? your sister(s)? Do your siblings see you as performing any particular role in the family? Was this the case during your childhood years? Do you feel that any of your brothers helped you to understand and relate to women better? to men? 297 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39- 40. 41. 42. Do you think that your sister(s) helped you to understand and relate to women better? Sensitize you to the female world? Were you and your brother(s) attracted to similar types of women? How would you say you and your siblings got along with friends when you were growing up? And now? Did your experience of childhood affect how you get along with friends and co-workers today? Were there (and are there presently) persons in your life who have been (or are) like a brother to you? like a sister to you? what is your relationship with them like? Would you discuss different things with your brothers than you would with your friends? Please give an example. Does your spouse enhance or interfer with your relation- ship with your brothers/sisters? Do you brother and sister-in-laws enhance or interfer with your relationship with your brothers/sisters? SECOND INTERVIEW QUESTIONS Since our last session have you thought about any particu- lar areas we talked about? Did you learn anything about your family in the process of completing the Personality Attributes Questionnaire? What is it about your own family (positive or negative) which has contributed to the way things are now between your brothers and sisters? What does it mean to have a brother? What does it mean to you to be a brother in your family? Have you ever noticed various functions that older. middle or younger brothers perform in a family? How do you see brothers showing affection toward each other? Do you feel that brothers experience a unique type of closeness to one another that does not necessarily exist between brothers and sisters? 298 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. Were there times when you monitored (kept tabs) your brother's behaviors? What qualities do you associate with the role of brothers in a family? What is the most memorable experience you have had with your brother(s)? Did those experiences bring you closer together? Do you belong to any "brotherhood" type organizations, e.g. the Elks, Knights. etc.? Why did you join? What do you get from being a member? What is your understanding of "brotherhood" outside the family? Is there. in your mind, a social meaning to the term "brother"? ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR SISTERS How would you describe your present relationship with your brother(s)? Are you satisfied or unsatisfied with your present relationships? Were there any particular times when your brother(s) were more 'brotherly' towards you than at any other time? Did your relationship with your brothers influence how you related to boys in childhood, and men in adult life? IF MARRIED: Is your husband similar to any of your brothers in any way(s)? birth position? qualities and characteristics? 299 APPENDIX H ADULT BROTHER SCALE APPENDIX H ADULT BROTHER SCALE Directions: Below are five statements which describe various characteristics. Using the scale of 1 to 10 please assign a value for each person indicated after each statement. Numerical values can be used more than once for each statement. For those persons requiring a name put first name on space provided. EXAMPLE: Statement #1: Involvement Most people sense that some of the people they know are more involved in their life than are others. For each person listed below, where do you think each of them would fall on a scale of 1 to 10, given your present relationship to them. Little or no interest in me Interested in me to or involvement with me. the extent that he/she becomes actively invol- ved in my life, plans and activities. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Name Value brother John 6 brother Jim 9 sister Mary 3 300 Statement #1: Involvement Most people sense that some of the people they know are more involved in their life than are others. For each person listed below, where do you think each of them would fall on a scale of 1 to 10, given your present relationship to them. Little or no interest in me or involvement with me. Interested in me to the extent that he/she becomes actively involved in my life, plans and activities. 1 2 3 4 7 8 9 10 Name Value Value brother father ______ brother ______ mother brother ______ close relative(male) brother I______ close relative(female) brother close friend(male) ______ sister close friend(female) sister co—worker(male) *_____ sister co-worker(female) sister neighbor(male) neighbor(female) acquaintance(male) acquaintance(female) 301 Statement #2 Support/Encouragement Most people experience that certain persons provide them with more support and encourage- For each person ment in life than others. listed below. where do you think each would fall on a scale of 1 to 10, given your present relationship to them. Provides little or no support or encouragement. brother brother brother brother brother sister sister sister sister Name Value 302 Provides a lot of support/encouragement. 7 8 9 10 Value father mother close relative(male) close relative(female)_____ close friend(male) close friend(female) co-worker(male) co-worker(female) neighbor(male) neighbor(female) acquaintance(male) acquaintance(female) Statement #3 Trust/Intimacy It is the experience of most people that they share with and trust some persons more than others. For each person listed below, where do you think each would fall on a scale of 1 to 10,given your present relationship to them. I feel I need to watch what and how I say things. Name Value brother brother brother brother brother sister sister sister sister 303 I feel I can share almost all of my goals, dreams. thoughts and feelings; making myself vulnerable to his/her criticism. 7 8 9 10 Value father mother close relative(male) close relative(female) close friend(male) close friend(female) co-worker(male) co-worker(female) neighbor(male) neighbor(female) acquaintance(male) acquaintance(female) Statement #4 Bonding/Closeness Most people sense that some of the people they know are closer to them than others. For each person listed below, where do you think each would fall on a scale of 1 to 10. given your present relationship to them. I feel I have little or I feel very close and no bond or closeness with feel a special bond him/her. with him/her. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Name Value Value brother ______ father ______ brother mother ______ brother close relative(male) brother close relative(female) brother close friend(male) sister close friend(female) sister co-worker(male) ______ sister co-worker(female) _____ sister neighbor(male) _____ neighbor(female) acquaintance(male) acquaintance(female) 304 Statement #5 Respect It is the experience of most people that they are respected more by some of the persons they know than by others. For each of the persons listed below. where do you think each would fall on a scale of 1 to 10, given your present relationship with them. I feel that he/she has little I feel that she/he re- respect for me as a person. spects me as a person, though we have different views and personalities. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Name Value Value brother father _____ brother mother _____ brother _* close relative(male) brother #7 ______ close relative(female)_____ brother close friend(male) ______ sister close friend(female) sister co-worker(male) _____ sister co-worker(female) _____ sister neighbor(male) neighbor(female) acquaintance(male) acquaintance(female) 305 APPENDIX I PERSONALITY ATTRIBUTES QUESTIONNAIRE APPENDIX I Personality Attributes Questionnaire The items below inquire about what kind of a person you think you are. Each item consists of a pair of charac- teristics, with the letters A-E inbetween. Each pair des- cribes contradictory characteristics, that is, you cannot be both at the same time, such as very artistic and not at all artistic. The letters form a scale between the two extremes. You are to choose a letter which describes where you fall on the scale. For example, if you think you have no artistic ability, you would choose A. If you think you are pretty good, you might choose D. If you are only medium, you might choose C, and so forth. CIRCLE your choice on each item. 1. Not at all agressive A...B...C...D...E... Very aggressive 2. Not at all A...B...C...D...E... Very independent independent 3. Not at all emotional A...B...C...D...E... Very emotional 4. Very submissive A...B...C...D...E... Very dominant 5. Not at all excitable A...B...C...D...E... Very excitable a major crisis in a major crisis 6. Very passive A...B...C...D...E... Very active 7. Not at all able to Able to devote devote self complete- self complete- ly to others A...B...C...D...E... 1y to others 8. Very rough A...B...C...D...E... Very gentle 9. Not at all helpful Very helpful to to others A...B...C...D...E... others 10. Not at all competi- A...B...C...D...E... Very competi- tive tive_ 11. Very home oriented A...B...C...D...E... Very worldly 120 "at at all kind A...B...C...D...E... very kind 306 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. Indifferent to others' approval Feelings not easily hurt Not at all aware of feelings of others Can make decisions easily Gives up very easily Never cries Not at all self- confident Feels very inferior Not at all understand- ing of others. Very cold in relations A...B...C...D...E... with others Very little need for security Goes to pieces under pressure A...B...C...D...E... A...B...C...D...E... A...B...C...D...E... A...B...C...D...E... A...B...C...D...E... A...B...C...D...E... A...B...C...D...E... A...B...C...D...E... A...B...C...D...E... A...B...C...D...E... A...B...C...D...E... 307 Highly needful of others' approval Feelings easily hurt Very aware of feelings of others Have difficulty making decisions Never gives up easily Cries very easily Very self- confident Feels very superior Very understand- ing of others Very warm in re- lations with others Very strong need for security Stands up well under pressure APPENDIX J FOLLOW-UP LETTER TO NON-PARTICIPANTS APPENDIX J FOLLOW UP LETTER TO NON-PARTICIPANTS Thank you for your willingness to possibly participate in the research project about which I briefly spoke with you. As I explained to you in December the study would only be able to include five families. Those five families have already been selected from a list of almost seventy families. Your family, however, was not one of those selected. Again, I thank you for your cooperation and willingness to consider participation in my research project. Sincerely. Rev. Joseph Tortorici. 0.P. 308 Step 1: Step 2: Step 3: Step 4: Step 5: Step 6: APPENDIX K SCHEDULE OF CONTACTS Personal contact with identified persons in the community. Purpose: a) to explain the study b) to obtain names of families to be contacted Telephone contact with each family to verify eligibility according to study's criteria After selection of the families to be included in the study personal contact was made with the re- ferred family member in each family Purpose: a) to explain the study and enlist their cooperation in participating. and in contacting their family members. b) to secure the names, addresses and telephone numbers of family members Letter explaining the study was sent to all family members. enclosed was the signed letter of intro- duction from the family member initially contacted A telephone call was made to each member of the family who was mailed a letter Purpose: a) to explain the study further b) to answer any questions c) to secure verbal agreement for parti cipation After all family members had verbally agreed to participate a second telephone call was made to set appointment for the first interview 309 APPENDIX K SCHEDULE OF CONTACTS Step 7: Step 8: Step 9: A list of the interview topic areas was sent to person as a preparation for the first interview First interview - two hours in length. At this time appropriate number of copies of the PAQ and ABS were left with participant to be completed by the time of the second interview Second interview - approximately two to three weeks after the first interview 310 APPENDIX L CHECKLIST INSTRUMENT ON BROTHER ROLE APPENDIX L CHECKLIST INSTRUMENT ON BROTHER ROLE fienenallnicmation Your Age Siblings: Age Sex "Relationship Sibling Position_____ "Relationship: Indicate whether a sibling is: Blood . Step Adopted Half DIRECTIONS: Below are a number of expectations which have been found to be associated with adult brothers in a family. Complete each statement by CHECKING those expectations which are true for YOU. MARK ONLY COLUMN #1. DIRECTIONS FOR COLUMN #2 ARE BELOW. STATEMENT #1: I EXPECT MY BROTHER ... Col. 1 Col. 2 1. to be there when needed . to be supportive 2 3. to be helpful A . to come through with help even when not asked 5. to know when I need his help or support 6. to care about what is happening in my life 311 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21 22. 23. 24. to be "another self" to be a close and good friend to be a companion. a pal to be open in sharing ideas to be open in sharing feelings to be available to share in similar activities to be protective to accomplish his best by achieving his potential to be loyal to the family to call or visit our parents frequently to attend family functions to uphold the family name to be cooperative to provide adice when needed to be a model for me to be competitive with me to love me to understand my feelings 312 WHICH EXPECTATIONS ARE MOST IMPORTANT TO YOU? CHOOSE FIVE. PUT NUMBER OF EXPECTATION IN SPACE ONLY. DIRECTION FOR COLUMN #2: IN THE SPACE PROVIDED FOR COLUMN #2 INDICATE WHETHER THE EXPECTATION YOU CHECKED PERTAINS TO : (A) ALL OF YOUR BROTHERS; (B) ONLY YOUR OLDEST BROTHER; (C) AN OLDER BROTHER; (D) YOUR YOUNGER BROTHERS; (E) YOUNGEST BROTHER ONLY. STATEMENT #2: (Self expectation only - no need to indicate a particular brother) MARK TRUE (T) OR FALSE (F) AS A BROTHER I EXPECT THAT WITHIN MY FAMILY I SHOULD ..... 1. be there when needed 2. be supportive 3. be helpful 4. come through with help even when not asked 5. know when I am needed to help or support 6. care about what is happening in my brother or sister's life 7. be "another self" to my brother 8. be a close and good friend to my brothers 9. be a companion. a pal 10. be open to sharing my ideas 11. be open to sharing my feelings 313 12. be available to share in similar activities 13. be protective 14. accomplish my best by achieving my potential 15. be loyal to my family 16. call or visit my parents frequently 17. attend family functions 18. uphold the family name 19. be cooperative 20. provide advice when needed 21. be a model for my other brothers/sisters 22. love my brothers/sisters 23. be competitive with my brothers 24. understand my brother's feelings WHICH FIVE (5) ARE MOST IMPORTANT TO YOU? COMMENTS - IF YOU HAVE OTHER EXPECTATIONS OF YOUR BROTHERS PLEASE LIST THEM BELOW. ANY COMMENTS WILL BE APPRECIATED. 314 APPENDIX M DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION INSTRUMENT APPENDIX M DEMOGRAPHIC INSTRUMENT __ __ Respondent ID# Age __ __ Sex (1)Male (2) Female __ Are you married, widowed, separated, divorced, never married? 1. Married 2. Separated 3. Divorced 4. Widowed 5. Never married __ IF MARRIED: Is this your first marriage? (IF NO) Did your last marriage end by death or divorce? 1. Yes, first marriage 2. No, ended by death 3. No, ended by divorce __ How long have your been married to your present spouse? IF R IS DIVORCED/SEPARATED: __ __ How long have your been separated/divorced? IF R IS WIDOWED: __ __ How long have been widowed? __ What nationality or ethnic group do you consider yourself? 1. White 2. Black 3. Mexican-American, Spanish American, Chicano 4. Other, specify 315 ___ What religion do you consider yourself? 1. Protestant 2. Roman Catholic 3. Other ___ What was the highest grade in school which you completed? 1. No formal schooling completed 2. 1-6 grades . 7-9 grades Some high school High school diploma. non-college training vocational training Some college, professional degree Bachelors degree Master's degree . Doctorate, Medical degree \OCDNO‘ U'IkW ___ Considering your major occupation are you presently employed, unemployed, retired, a student, a housewife, or some thing else? 1. Employed full-time . Employed part—time . Unemployed Retired Student Full-time housewife Other NICKU‘IJ-‘JUON ___ What approximately is your family's total yearly income from all sources? 1. $0-4.999 $50000-99999 310,000-14.999 $15.000-19.999 $20,000-24,999 $25.000-29.999 330.000-34.999 $35 p 000 'I' 00-40411sz 0 o o o o o o ___ How long have you lived in this community? PERSONS LIVING IN THE HOUSEHOLD NAME SEX AGE RELATIONSHIP 2. 3. ___ __ MOTHER FATHER NAME (oldest to young- 2-F 2-Dead 2 Not partic. est) PARENTS STATUS AGE (LIVING) AGE (AT DEATH) SIBLING RELATIONSHIPS SEX STATUS CLOSENESS FREQUENCY OF CONTACT 1-M 1-Live 1.Not at all 1.Lives with R Never Once a year 1—2 times yr. Several time a yr. Once a month Every week GT once a week Daily 3 Moderately 4 Quite close 5 Extremely cl 6 Refused \OCDNO‘UT-DWN Letters Phone Visits 317 BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Abramovitch. Rona. Carl Corter and Bella Lando. "Sibling Interaction in the Home", Child Development. Vol. 50. 1979. 99.997-1003. Adams, Bert N. Kinship in an Urban Setting. Chicago: Markham Publishing Co., 1968. Adams, Bert N., "Birth Order: A Critical Review", Sociometry, Vol.34 (3). 1972. pp.411-39. Aldous, Joan. Family Career: Developmental Change in Families. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 197 . Altus, William D., "Birth Order and Its Sequelae", Science, Vol.151. 1965. pp.44-49. Arkin, William. "Prolegomenon to the Study of "Brother" as a Male Family Role". The Family Coordinato . Vol.28. n.4, 1979- PP.630-637. Arnstein. Helene S. Bootngns and Sister§(Sisters and Brothers. New York: E.P. Dutton. 1979. Bank, Stephen and Michael D. Kahn. "Sisterhood-Brotherhood is Powerful: Sibling Sub-systems and Family Therapy", Family Process. Vol.14(3). 1975. pp.311-337. Bank, Stephen and Michael D. Kahn. The Sibling Bond. New York: Basic Books. Inc., 1982. Bakan, D. The Duality of Human Existence. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1966. Biddle. Bruce J. and Edwin J. Thomas. (eds) Role Theory Concepts and Research. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1966. Biddle. Bruce J. Role Theory, Expectations, Identities and Behaviorg. New York: Academic Press, 1979. Bossard. James H.S. and Eleanor S. Boll, "Adjustment of Siblings in Large Families", American Journal of Psychiatry. Vol.112, n.11, 195 , pp. 9- 92. Bossard, James H.S. and Eleanor S. Boll. The Large family System: An Original Study in the Sociology of Family Behavior, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1960. 318 Bowerman, Charles E. and Rebecca M. Dobash. "Structural Variations in Inter-Siblings Affect", Journal of Marriage and the Family, February 1974. pp.48-54. Brim. Orville G., "Family Structure and Sex Role Learning by Children: A Further Analysis of Helen Koch's Data," Sociometry. Vol.21, 1958, pp.1-6. Burr. Wesley R., Geoffrey K. Leigh. Randall D. Day and John Constantine, "Symbolic Interaction and the Family". In Wesley R. Burr, Reuben Hill, F. Ivan Nye. and Ira L. Reiss. Contemporary Theories about the Family. New York:.The Free Press. 1979. Cicirelli. Victor G., "Sibling Influence Throughout the Lifespan", pp.267-284. In Michael E. Lamb and Brian Sutton-Smith. Sibling Relationships. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 19 2. Clarke. E.L. American Men of Letterg: Their Nature gnd Nurture. New York: Columbia University Press. 1916. Cottrell. L.S., Jr., "The Adjustment of the Individual to his Age and Sex Roles", American Sociological Review. Vol.7, 1942. pp. 617-620. DeGolia. R., "Thoughts on Men's Oppression", Issues in Radical Therapy. 1973. pp.14-17. Denzin, Norman K. The Research Act. Aldine Publishing Co., Chicago: 1970a. Denzin, Norman K. Sociological Methods. A Sourcebook. Aldine Publishing Co., Chicago: 1970b. Dunn, Judy and Carol Kendrick. Siblings: Love. Envy. and Understandin . Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1982. Ellis, H. A Study of British Genius. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, new revised edition. 1926. Fischel. Elizabeth. Sisters. New York: Bantam Book, Inc., 1979. Forer. Lucille K. The Birth Order Factor. New York: David McKay Co., Inc., 1976. Glaser. Barney G. and Anselm L. Strauss. "Discovery of Substantive Theory: A Basic Strategy Underlying Qualitative Research", American Behavioral Scientist. Vol.8. n.6. 1965. pp.5-12. 319 Glaser. Barney G. and Anselm L. Strauss. The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co., 1967 o Hartley. R., "Sex Role Pressures in the Socialization of the Male Child". Psychological Reports, Vol.5. 1959. pp.457-468. Harding. M. Esther. The I and the Not I. A study in the development of consciousness. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Bollingen Paperback Edition, 1973. Hartup. Williard W., "The Social Worlds of Childhoood". American Psychologist. Vol.34. n.10. 1979. pp.944-950. Helmreich. Robert L. Janet T. Spence and Carole K. Holahan. "Psychological Androgyny and Sex Role Flexibility: A Test of Two Hypotheses", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1979, Vol.37. n.10. Hess, R. and G. Handel. Family Worlds: A Psychological Approach to Family Life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1959. I Hodgson. James W. and Robert A. Lewis. "Pilgrim's Progress III". Family Process, Vol.18, 1979. pp.163-173. Irish. Donald P., "Sibling Interaction: A Neglected Aspect of Family Life Research". Social Forces, 1964. Vol.42, n.3. pp.279-288. Kantor. David and William Lehr. Inside the Family. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. 1976. Kemper. Theodore D., "Mate Selection and Marital Satisfaction according to Sibling Type of Husband and Wife", Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1966. Vol.28. n.3. pp.346-49. Koch, Helen L., "Some Personality Correlates of Sex. Sibling Position. and Sex of Siblings among Five and Six Year Old Children", Genetic Psychology Monographs, 1955. Vol.52. pp.3-50. Koch. Helen L., "Attitudes of Children toward their Peers as related to certain Characteristics of their Siblings", Psychological Monographs. 1956, Vol.70. Lamb. Michael E. and Brian Sutton-Smith. Sibling Relationships: TheiryNature and Significance Acnos§ the Lifespan. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Publishers, 1982. 320 Leichter, Hope Jensen. The Familygs Educator. New York: Teachers College Press. 1974. pp.18:20. Lewis, Robert A., "Emotional Intimacy Among Men", Journal of Social Issues. 1978. Vol.34, n.1. pp.108-121. Manning. Peter K., "Analytic Induction". In Robert B. Smith (Ed.), Social Science Methods: An Introduction. New York: The Free Press, 1972. Maccoby. E. and C. Jacklin. The Psychology of Sex Differences. Stanford. Calif: Stanford University Press, 1974. McArthur. Charles. "Personalities of First and Second Born Children", Psychiatry. 1956, Vol.19. pp.47-54. Nye, F. Ivan. Role Structure and Analysis of the Family. Beverly Hills. Calif: Sage Publications, 1976. Papajohn, John and John Speigel. Transactions in Families. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. 1975. Parsons, T., "Family Structure and the Socialization of the Child", In T. Parsons and R.F. Bales (eds.). Family Socialization and Interactive Procgss. Glencoe: Free Press, 1955. Pleck, Joseph J., "Man to Man: Is Brotherhood Possible?", In Old Family, New Family. Nona Glazer-Malbin (ed). D. Van Nostrand Co., New York: 1975. Roe. Anne. The Makgng of a Sggentist. New York: Dodd. Mead and Co., 1953. Robinson. W.S., "The Logical Structure of Analytic Induction", American Sociological Review, 1951. V01016o n.6, pp0812-81go Ross Helgola G. and Joel I. Milgram. "Important Variables in Adult Sibling Relationships: A Qualitative Study", pp. 225-249. In Michael E. Lamb and Brian Sutton-Smith, Sibling Relationship . New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Publishers, 1982. Schvaneveldt. Jay and Marilyn Ihinger. "Sibling Relationships in the Family", In Burr, Wesley R., Reuben Hill. F. Ivan Nye. and Ira Reiss. Contgnponacy Theories About the Family, New York: The Free Press, 2 pp. 53- 70 321 Spence. Janet T. and Robert L. Helmreich. Masculinity and Femininity: Their Psychological Dimensions. CBrrelates and Antecedents. Austin and London: University of Texas Press, 1978. Sutton-Smith. Brian and B.G. Rosenberg. The Sibling. New York: Hold, Rinehart and Wintston, Inc., 1970. Terman, L. M., Genetic Stugles of Genlg§., Vol.1. The Mental and Physical Traits of a Thousand Gifted Children. Stanford. Calif: Stanford University Press, 1925. Toman. Walter. Family Constellation: Its Effects on Personality and Social Behavior. Second Edition. New York: Springer Publishing Co., 1969. Toman. Walter. "Birth Order Rules All: Never Mind Your Horoscope", Psychology Today. 1970. Vol.4, n.7. pp.45-49.68-69. Turner. R. H., "Role Taking: Process versus Conformity", In A.M. Rose (ed), Human Behavior and Social Processes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1962. pp.20-40. 322 .fl-----‘